Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 05042015 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE May 4, 2015 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee 1.Introductions 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). 3.Administrative Items, if applicable (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development). 4.REVIEW Record of meeting for the March 2, 2015 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development). 5.ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit to Caltrans and MTC grant applications for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Cycle 2 (Mary Halle, Department of Public Works). 6.AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to utilize Rule 20A work credits through PG&E to underground overhead electrical facilities within the Orwood Bridge crossing at Werner Dredger Cut (Mary Halle, Department of Public Works). 7.CONSIDER Executive Order B-29-15 (Continued State of Emergency - Drought Conditions - Edmund G. Brown Jr.), DISCUSS a Contra Costa County response, and take ACTION as appropriate. (Departments of Conservation and Development and Public Works). 8.CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development). Page 5 Page 65 Page 71 Page 74 Page 83 TWIC Packet Page Number - 1 9.REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2015 Calendar (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development). 10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, June 1, 2015. 11.Adjourn The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us Page 156 TWIC Packet Page Number - 2 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act TWIC Packet Page Number - 3 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:05/04/2015   Subject:Administrative Items Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.  Referral Update: Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments No file(s) attached. TWIC Packet Page Number - 4 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:05/04/2015   Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for the March 2, 2015 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Meeting. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each County Body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web page: www.ca.contra-costa.ca.us/twic Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the March 2, 2015 Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments March 2015 TWIC Meeting Minutes 3-2-15 Sign-In Sheet HANDOUT 2-24-15 Meeting, Background Paper TWIC Packet Page Number - 5 HANDOUT 2-24-15 Meeting Hearing Agenda HANDOUT 2-26-15 Senate Bill HANDOUT 2-17-15 Keystone Public Affairs update 3-2-15 TWIC Meeting Testimony 3-2-15 TWIC Mtg Power Pt Presentation-Stormwater-TJensen TWIC Packet Page Number - 6 D R A F T TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE March 2, 2015 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair Present: Chair Candace Andersen    Vice Chair Mary N. Piepho    Attendees: Carrie Ricci, CCCounty Public Works  Julie Bueren, CCCounty Public Works  Steve Kowaleski, CCCounty Public Works  Tim Jensen, CCCounty Flood Control, Water Con Dist  Mike Carlson, CCCounty Flood Control  John Burgh, CC Water District  Mark Seedall, CC Water District  Shirley Shelangoski, Parents For Safer Environment  Susan JunFish, Parents For Safer Environment  Michael Sullivan, Parents For Safer Environment  Tanya Drlik, CCCounty IPM  Michelle Blackwell, EBMUD  John Cunningham, CCCounty DCD  1.Introductions See the attachment for the March 2 Meeting sign-in sheet and "Attendees" section above. 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda, (speakers may be limited to three minutes). 3.Administrative Items, if applicable, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development). 4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the December 4, 2014 Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Committee unanimously approved the 12/4/14 meeting record. 5.COMMUNICATION to/from the Committee, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development). 6.RECEIVE report from City of San Ramon staff regarding the San Ramon Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, and take ACTION as appropriate, (Carrie Ricci, CC County Public Works/City of San Ramon staff). TWIC Packet Page Number - 7 Carrie Ricci introduced the item, Lisa Bobadilla, City of San Ramon Transportation Manager, provided the Committee an update indicating that the City Council will select a final design in June 2015. The following comments and suggestions were provided by the Committee, have City Center architect look at the bridge design, gather additional information and feedback from appropriate committees, commissions, etc. The County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, provided additional comment indicating that he has used the Iron Horse over-crossing projects to underscore with Caltrans & CTC staff that discussions related to the active transportation uses of the corridor are "not theoretical but real and looming". 7.DIRECT staff to continue engagement with the Statewide Stormwater Funding Initiative, as well as considering other funding mechanisms, with a report back to the TWIC. The Committee received the report and directed staff to bring updates as they became available and to bring a support letter for AB 1362 (Wolk) to the BOS when appropriate. 8.CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and DIRECT staff to 1) bring final comments on the 2014 Countywide Transportation Update to the Board of Supervisors, 2) draft a letter to our State delegation regarding school siting and safety for the signature of the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, and take other ACTION as appropriate. The Committee approved: transmitting a letter to Joint Committee on the K-12 School Facility Program regarding school safety and siting (attached), bringing Automated Speed Enforcement recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, and transmitting a letter to CCTA regarding the CTP. 9.ACCEPT Integrated Pest Management reports, and take ACTION as appropriate. The Committee directed IPM staff to respond to the concerns raised by Parents for a Safer Environment using the response matrix, and to coordinate with District II staff in bringing the response to the IPM Advisory Committee. 10.REVIEW Status Report and DIRECT staff to forward the report to the Board of Supervisors with revisions as appropriate. The Committee unanimously approved the report as presented, and directed staff to bring the Report to the Board of Supervisors. 11.REVIEW recommended referrals to the Committee and DIRECT staff to forward the recommendations to the Board of Supervisors with revisions as appropriate. The Committee unanimously approved the referrals to TWIC, and directed staff to bring the report to the Board of Supervisors. 12.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, April 6, 2015. The Committee adjourned in the afternoon of March 2, 2015. 13.Adjourn The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. TWIC Packet Page Number - 8 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order):  Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act For Additional Information Contact:  Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.usJohn Cunningham, Committee Staff TWIC Packet Page Number - 9 TWIC Packet Page Number - 10 1 | P a g e Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 Joint Informational Hearing Funding the Transportation Maintenance Backlog Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:30 p.m. – John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) BACKGROUND PAPER Hearing Introduction On February 24, the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 will consider options to address the growing backlog of maintenance and rehabilitation projects on the state’s road and highway system. In this hearing, the committee will first hear presentations identifying the need for maintenance and upgrades to both the state highway system and locally managed streets and roads. Next, Dr. Asha Weinstein Agrawal of the Mineta Transportation Institute will provide an overview of current transportation funding sources and the traditional challenges the state faces in increasing those resources, as well as the negative effects to our state and economy if we don’t act soon. Finally, a number of presenters will discuss various options the committee may wish to consider for addressing the growing backlog. Background Overview of the Maintenance Problem The state has underfunded the maintenance and rehabilitation of its road system for decades. As a result, 68 percent of California’s roads are in “poor” or “mediocre” condition, putting California behind 43 other states in road condition, according to the American Society of TWIC Packet Page Number - 11 2 | P a g e Civil Engineers. As demonstrated in Figure 1, 54 of California’s counties have an average pavement rating of “poor” or “at risk,” with much of this deterioration occurring over the past six years. Not only roads are suffering: California has nearly 3,000 structurally deficient bridges. The movement of people is only a part of the transportation puzzle. Also critical to California’s economic well-being is the movement of goods. The efficient movement of goods, both within the state and across state boundaries, increases the state’s ability to generate jobs and remain competitive. The Office of Freight Management at the Federal Highway Administration estimates that the amount of freight moved on California highways will increase from 971 million tons in 2002 to 2,179 million tons in 2035, an increase of more than 100 percent. This increased movement of goods will create more truck traffic, and much of this increase will occur in and around urban areas and on the 50-year-old interstate highway system. Truck traffic exacts a greater toll on pavement and bridges than lighter weight vehicles, so increasing truck traffic will accelerate the deterioration of the transportation infrastructure. In 2011, the California Transportation Commission compiled the Statewide Transportation System Needs Assessment. According to this assessment, over the next ten years the state’s total transportation system costs will be $538.1 billion, while estimated revenues from all sources will only be $242.4 billion, or roughly 45% of what is needed. Overcoming transportation funding deficiencies becomes increasingly challenging, as the true cost of deferred maintenance is compounded over time. Roads that are not properly Figure 1. Condition of California’s local streets and roads. On a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) has deteriorated to 66 (“at risk”) in 2014. TWIC Packet Page Number - 12 3 | P a g e maintained require more costly rehabilitation and reconstruction long before the projected end of their useful lives. These pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction projects are by far the most expensive type of maintenance projects. For example, major pavement rehabilitation averages at least 10 to 12 times the cost of preventative maintenance, while minor pavement repairs average four times the cost of preventative maintenance. For bridges, the cost of minor repairs can exceed maintenance costs by a factor of 12. With many of California’s roads already in the “at risk” category, Figure 2 shows that they are positioned at the precipice of a sharp decline in which maintenance costs increase dramatically over the life cycle of the pavement. Specific Needs The following is a brief description of the identified needs related to the state highway system (SHS) as well as a discussion of identified needs on the local streets and roads systems. State Highway System — According to the 2013 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), the total need for the rehabilitation and operation of the SHS for the next ten years is $82 billion, or an average annual cost of $8.2 billion. This cost estimate includes funding for project development, right-of-way acquisition, and capital construction. Projected state funding available for the SHOPP is $2 billion a year, which covers roughly 25 percent of the estimated need. Over 10 years this sums up to a $59 billion shortfall in Figure 2. Generalized Pavement Life Cycle PCI: Pavement Condition Index; sy: square yard TWIC Packet Page Number - 13 4 | P a g e revenues necessary for proper maintenance of the SHS, including more than $31 billion in roadway preservation and $12 billion in bridge preservation and maintenance. Local Streets and Roads — California’s cities and counties own and maintain more than 143,000 centerline miles of local streets and roads. This road network incorporates 80 percent of the state’s total publicly maintained centerline miles, and is valued at over $188 billion. The table below shows the total funding shortfall for the local system of $78.3 billion over the next 10 years. For comparison, the results from previous needs assessments are also included. While bringing the state’s local street and road systems to a cost‐effective best management practice level will require more funding now, investing in local streets and roads sooner will reduce the need for more spending in the future. To reach that level — at which taxpayer money can be spent most cost‐effectively — will require an additional $56.1 billion for pavements alone, or $78.3 billion total for a functioning transportation system, over the next decade. In other words, to bring the local system back into a cost‐effective condition, local transportation agencies need $7.8 billion annually in new funds. Sources of Funding for Transportation Projects California’s state and local transportation systems rely on funding from local, state, and federal sources. Regional and local governments provide about half of the state’s transportation funding, and state and federal governments each provide about one quarter of the state’s total funding. Below we describe these three sources of funding in more detail. TWIC Packet Page Number - 14 5 | P a g e Local Funding — Local sales tax measures and other funding sources such as local general funds, property taxes, and developer fees are the primary local sources of funding for road maintenance and expansion. Twenty counties (known as self-help counties) have approved ballot measures that increase the local sales tax for transportation programs. These measures are the largest source of revenue for transportation, requiring two-thirds local voter approval and generally lasting between 20 and 30 years. State Funding — State funding for transportation comes primarily from revenues derived from taxes and fees. The three main state revenue sources are: (1) the state gasoline and diesel excise tax, (2) truck weight fees, and (3) the sales tax on diesel fuel. The base of these taxes has diminished over time as vehicles have become more fuel-efficient or use alternative energy sources not subject to state taxes. As a result, the traditional funding sources have not kept pace with the demands of a growing population and an aging transportation system. In addition, the state funds transportation projects with general obligation (GO) bonds. The most recent transportation bond approved by the voters — the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B) — provided $19.9 billion for a variety of transportation projects. However, most of this funding is already committed to ongoing projects and will be fully expended in the next few years as these projects are completed. Federal Funding — The Highway Trust Fund, the source of most federal funding for the country’s roads and transit infrastructure, has seen revenue fall short of expenditures for more than a decade. Drawing down trust fund balances and transferring money from the general fund have served as temporary fixes, but have not addressed the underlying issue of declining revenue from the federal fuel excise tax of 18.4 cents/gallon gasoline and 24.4 cents/gallon diesel fuel. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, absent reforms, trust fund shortfalls will grow to $162 billion over the next 10 years. Roughly 98 percent of federal funding for surface transportation flows to state and local governments, mostly in the form of reimbursements for expenses already incurred. Because projects require significant planning and construction time, it is important state and local governments have some certainty and consistency in funding. Historically, this has been the TWIC Packet Page Number - 15 6 | P a g e reason federal funding was authorized for multiple years. However, the last full federal funding authorization (six years of funding) was passed nearly a decade ago, and state and local governments have been operating under short-term funding extensions since then. Funding uncertainty and declining revenues present challenges for planning and investment in transportation projects. Options for Addressing the Backlog There are a number of options for providing additional state funding for transportation projects in California. The table below summarizes the pros and cons of some key options, and each is discussed in more depth following the table. Various Options for Increasing State Funding for Transportation Projects Option Pros Cons Increase fuel excise tax Targets larger and less fuel- efficient vehicles. Cannot be taken for general fund relief. Regressive, and revenue source diminishes over time. Increase vehicle license fee (VLF) Can be implemented statewide. Low administrative costs. Is relatively progressive, and tax deductible. Paid once annually, one-time sticker shock. Can be redirected for general fund relief. Increase vehicle registration fee (VRF) Can be implemented statewide. Low administrative costs. Cannot be taken for general fund relief. Regressive, and is paid once annually. Increase vehicle weight fees Would better align costs that heavy trucks impose on roads with the amount paid. Could have a somewhat negative economic impact. Can be redirected for general fund relief. Lower the local voter threshold Increases the likelihood of locals raising revenue to address their own needs. Does not address the statewide needs. Amount of revenue generated uncertain. Increase number of tolls/ road pricing Can help address congestion in urban areas, and ties revenue to use. Regressive and cannot be implemented statewide. Amount of revenue generated uncertain. Sell transportation bonds Provides funding for transportation projects, though typically not for maintenance of existing roads. Does not generate new revenue and commits future revenues. Governor is not supportive. Impose mileage- based charge Can be implemented statewide, addresses increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles, and ties revenue to use. The state is not ready to implement, with technology, privacy, and administrative issues left to resolve. TWIC Packet Page Number - 16 7 | P a g e Fuel Excise Tax — Some support increasing the state fuel excise tax to keep pace with inflation. The inflation-adjusted value of the base excise tax on gasoline, set at 18 cents in 1994, is only 10 cents today. Increasing and/or indexing the excise tax to inflation would help maintain the tax’s purchasing power. One benefit of this tax is that the larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles that cause a disproportionate amount of road damage pay more taxes. In addition, revenues from this tax are constitutionally protected for transportation purposes and therefore could not be redirected for other uses. However, this tax is regressive and increasing the tax is likely to be politically challenging. Also, this tax does not proportionally account for the wear and tear caused by vehicles using the state transportation system that do not rely, or rely less heavily, on gasoline. Vehicle License Fee — The state imposes an annual vehicle license fee (VLF) based on the estimated depreciated cost of each vehicle in lieu of a property tax. Since the state already collects this fee, the administrative costs to increase the VLF are low and it can easily be implemented statewide. In addition, this fee is tax-deductible on both federal and state income tax returns, reducing the fee’s burden on vehicle owners who itemize deductions. An increase in the VLF could generate significant revenue — a one percent increase, to 1.65 percent of vehicle value, would generate roughly $3 billion in new revenue annually. However, polling suggests that increasing the VLF, or “car tax,” would be met with significant public resistance; the annual one-time bill could also result in “sticker shock” for the public. This revenue stream is also not constitutionally protected for transportation uses, and could be redirected for other purposes. Vehicle Registration Fee — In addition to the VLF, the state annually collects a vehicle registration fee (VRF), which is a flat fee everyone pays in order to register their vehicles in the state of California. Because it is not a tax in lieu of a property tax, revenues from the VRF are constitutionally protected for transportation purposes and therefore could not be redirected for other uses. A $35 increase in the VRF generates roughly $1 billion in additional revenue. The fact that the VRF is the same amount regardless of the value of the vehicle, however, makes this TWIC Packet Page Number - 17 8 | P a g e a regressive tax. In addition, some argue that increasing this fee too much could create an economic barrier and discourage owners from registering their vehicles with the state. Vehicle Weight Fees — Trucks currently pay vehicle weight fees based on the estimated gross weight of the vehicle. Some argue that current weight fees are not proportionate to the costs that these heavy vehicles impose on the state’s transportation system. An increase in the fees that trucks pay would likely receive opposition and potentially have a somewhat negative economic impact because it may increase the costs of goods and services. In addition, this revenue stream is not constitutionally protected for transportation uses, and could be redirected for other purposes. Local Revenue Options — Advocates generally discuss two options for raising additional transportation revenues at the local level. First, state law allows counties to impose a sales tax for local transportation purposes when approved by a supermajority, or two-thirds of those voting. Some suggest the two-thirds threshold could be lowered to a simple majority, making it easier for local governments to pass these taxes. While these taxes can create a significant amount of new revenue for local transportation projects, they do not encourage fuel efficiency, are regressive, and don’t help to comprehensively address the state’s transportation needs. Another option often discussed, which the Governor included in his proposed budget this year, is expanding the opportunity for local transportation agencies to build toll lanes. Toll roads can help to address congestion, especially in urban areas, and can result in the more efficient use of scarce resources (uncongested lanes) during peak travel periods. However, this approach does not address issues of congestion throughout the state and would not generate enough revenue to maintain the state’s existing transportation system. Transportation Bonds — The state can sell bonds to finance transportation projects. However, this approach does not generate new revenues, and recently the state has dedicated existing transportation revenues to bond debt service. This approach also has the downside of not charging taxpayers proportionate to their use, or cost imposed on the system. Finally, the TWIC Packet Page Number - 18 9 | P a g e Governor has publicly discouraged the idea of increasing the state’s debt burden for transportation purposes. Mileage-based Charge — A mileage-based user fee charges users of the system an amount that is proportionate to the amount they drive, generally based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Increasing revenues through this approach would address the declining use of fuel and the associated revenue decline. A VMT-based charge could be established to adjust for inflation so that the revenue generated maintains its purchasing power. An advantage of such a charge is that it can be implemented statewide. Before implementing a VMT-based charge, the state needs to do significant work to address privacy issues and obtain the public’s support. A recent report by the University of Southern California, Sol Price School of Public Policy, estimated that a 2.1 cents per mile VMT fee would raise enough revenue to replace the current state excise tax on gasoline. Conclusion Clearly there is a need, and the Legislature should further consider options, for increasing the amount of funding available for transportation projects. This legislative process should include efforts to educate, inform, and solicit input from stakeholders, including the public at- large and other impacted interest groups. The effort needs to provide information about the state’s transportation funding shortfall, the inadequacy of existing funds to maintain the current system, and the estimated annual cost of various options. TWIC Packet Page Number - 19 TWIC Packet Page Number - 20 SENATE BILL No. 564 Introduced by Senator Cannella February 26, 2015 An act to add Section 42011 to the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. legislative counsel’s digest SB 564, as introduced, Cannella. Vehicles: school zone fines. Existing law, in the case of specified violations relating to rules of the road and driving under the influence, doubles the fine in the case of misdemeanors, and increases the fine, as specified, in the case of infractions, if the violation is committed by the driver of a vehicle within a highway construction or maintenance area during any time when traffic is regulated or restricted by the Department of Transportation or local authorities pursuant to existing law or is committed within a designated Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone. This bill would also require that an additional fine of $35 be imposed if the violation occurred when passing a school building or school grounds, as specified, and the highway is posted with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign and an accompanying sign notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for traffic violations that are committed within that school zone. The bill would require that these additional fines be deposited in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund, for purposes of funding school zone safety projects within the Active Transportation Program. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. TWIC Packet Page Number - 21 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 42011 is added to the Vehicle Code, to line 2 read: line 3 42011. (a)  For any offense specified in subdivision (b) that is line 4 committed by the driver of a vehicle under either of the following line 5 conditions, a fine of thirty-five dollars ($35) shall be imposed in line 6 addition to the amount otherwise prescribed and any penalty line 7 assessments or other fees or additions: line 8 (1)  When passing a school building or the grounds thereof, if line 9 the building or grounds are contiguous to a highway and posted line 10 with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign and an accompanying line 11 sign notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for traffic line 12 violations that are committed within that school zone, and children line 13 are going to or leaving the school during school hours or during line 14 the noon recess period. line 15 (2)  When passing any school grounds that are not separated line 16 from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while line 17 the grounds are in use by children, and the highway is posted with line 18 a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign and an accompanying sign line 19 notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for traffic line 20 violations that are committed within that school zone. line 21 (b)  A violation of any of the following provisions is an offense line 22 that is subject to subdivision (a): line 23 (1)  Article 3 (commencing with Section 21450) of Chapter 2 line 24 of Division 11, relating to obedience to traffic devices. line 25 (2)  Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650) of Division line 26 11, relating to driving, overtaking, and passing. line 27 (3)  Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800) of Division line 28 11, relating to yielding the right-of-way. line 29 (4)  Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) of Division line 30 11, relating to turning and stopping and turn signals. line 31 (5)  Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348) of Division line 32 11, relating to speed limits. line 33 (6)  Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 22450) of Division line 34 11, relating to special traffic stops. line 35 (7)  Section 23103, relating to reckless driving. line 36 (8)  Section 23104, relating to reckless driving which results in line 37 bodily injury to another. line 38 (9)  Section 23109, relating to speed contests. 2 TWIC Packet Page Number - 22 line 1 (10)  Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence of line 2 alcohol or a controlled substance, or a violation of Section 23103, line 3 as specified in Section 23103.5, relating to alcohol-related reckless line 4 driving. line 5 (11)  Section 23153, relating to driving under the influence of line 6 alcohol or a controlled substance, which results in bodily injury line 7 to another. line 8 (12)  Section 23154, relating to convicted drunk drivers operating line 9 a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent line 10 or greater. line 11 (13)  Section 23220, relating to drinking while driving. line 12 (14)  Section 23221, relating to drinking in a motor vehicle while line 13 on the highway. line 14 (15)  Section 23222, relating to driving while possessing line 15 marijuana or an open alcoholic beverage container. line 16 (16)  Section 23223, relating to being in a vehicle on the highway line 17 while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container. line 18 (17)  Section 23224, relating to being a driver or passenger under line 19 21 years of age possessing an open alcoholic beverage container. line 20 (18)  Section 23225, relating to being the owner or driver of a line 21 vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container. line 22 (19)  Section 23226, relating to being a passenger in a vehicle line 23 in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container. line 24 (c)  The additional fines authorized by this section shall be line 25 deposited in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation line 26 Fund for purposes of funding school zone safety projects within line 27 the Active Transportation Program established in Chapter 8 line 28 (commencing with Section 2380) of Division 3 of the Streets and line 29 Highways Code. O 3 TWIC Packet Page Number - 23 MEMORANDUM To: Randy Iwasaki, Executive Director - Contra Costa Transportation Authority From: Brian Sowa, Keystone Public Affairs Subject: February Update Date: February 17, 2015 Highway Trust Fund As previously noted in prior updates, the Highway Trust Fund will run out of funds and the current extension is set to expire at the end of May. Congress continues to be no closer to agreement on how to shore up the trust fund than when it punted the task by passing a short-term extension last summer. Late last month, Senate EPW Chairman Jim Inoffe held a full committee hearing on the highway and transit bill). The hearing will emphasize hearing emphasized the threat that businesses, states, and workers face due to the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Secretary Foxx was quoted in the hearing as stating "We must do something dramatic -To hell with the politics," urging lawmakers to put aside their differences and reach agreement on a long-term bill. As part of President Obama’s FY15 budget proposal, the Administration announced a new six-year, $478 billion version of the GROW America Act to replace the previous four-year, $302 billion proposal. The new proposal, which would combine the $238 billion in estimated revenue generated from the 14 percent repatriation tax with $240 billion in estimated gas tax revenues, would fund highways at just over $51 billion in FY 2016, which would increase to $54.4 billion in FY 2021. Transit programs would see a significant increase, starting at $18.2 billion in FY 2016 ($13.9 billion of which is for transit formula grants) and increasing to $20 billion in 2021. The GROW America Act also requests $7.5 billion over six years for the TIGER grant program, increases NHTSA funding from $830 million in 2015 to $1.08 billion in 2021, and proposes $935 million over 6 years for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), including $158 million in FY 2016 to advance vehicle automation and vehicle-to-vehicle communication technologies. House T&I Chairman Bill Shuster held his first hearing on the reauthorization on Wednesday February 11th, where again Secretary Foxx pushed for a long term bill. Foxx said he's hopeful something big will happen this year, stating it all starts at the ground level, out on the road. "I just think the more awareness we can build in the minds of the everyday person, that we don't have to be stuck, we can actually choose the future," he said. "That's the message and frankly, there are enough Americans out there that are frustrated, stuck in traffic and see what's coming around the corner that it's actually not a hard message to deliver." While Shuster and Inoffe have begun action on the reauthorization, the biggest hurdle continues to be how to pay for it. The two chairmen say they plan to work more closely with the House and Senate tax-writing committees before producing a multi-year bill. 'What I'm not going to do is come out and do ... what she did last time, say 'this is our bill' and now this is their problem, let them try to them to fund it," Inhofe said. Shuster stated: "Wait until we get the funding and let's craft a bill that we know what the timeframe is. And I think that makes more sense to me," he said. "We're drafting [a bill] right now as we speak, but the driving force behind it is going to be the funding. We don't want another two year bill, we want a five, six year bill.” TWIC Packet Page Number - 24 House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan says he sees a window for a tax rewrite this year, but it has to be done by the summer to move. He did leave the door open to using tax reform to help pay for the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund.' ''If we can get comprehensive tax reform that can help fix this,' he said, it is an option. 'The only way repatriation can actually work to help with the Highway Trust Fund problem is through comprehensive tax reform.' He said short-term tax holidays and deemed repatriation don't work. If tax reform doesn't happen, he will be forced to find the funding from another source.' Key Dates CCTA Washington DC Visit – April 12 – April 15 (Meetings to be scheduled with Department of Transportation, Congressional Offices and Committees, Trade Associations) Highway Authorization Expires – May 31, 2015 TWIC Packet Page Number - 25 TWIC Packet Page Number - 26 TWIC Packet Page Number - 27 TWIC Packet Page Number - 28 TWIC Packet Page Number - 29 TWIC Packet Page Number - 30 TWIC Packet Page Number - 31 TWIC Packet Page Number - 32 TWIC Packet Page Number - 33 TWIC Packet Page Number - 34 TWIC Packet Page Number - 35 TWIC Packet Page Number - 36 TWIC Packet Page Number - 37 TWIC Packet Page Number - 38 TWIC Packet Page Number - 39 TWIC Packet Page Number - 40 TWIC Packet Page Number - 41 TWIC Packet Page Number - 42 TWIC Packet Page Number - 43 Pine Creek Flooding, Concord 1958 Stormwater Funding Needs Report Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee March 3, 2015 TWIC Packet Page Number - 44 •Stormwater Facilities •Funding Sources •Funding Status •Funding Needs •Recommended Actions San Ramon Creek at Livorna Rd, Alamo January 2006 Presentation Outline TWIC Packet Page Number - 45 San Ramon Creek Bypass at Civic Park, Walnut Creek 2006 •Regional Flood Protection •Community Drainage •Road System •Private Drainage Contra Costa County Stormwater Facilities TWIC Packet Page Number - 46 •Regional Flood Protection •Community Drainage •Road System •Private Drainage Contra Costa County Stormwater Facilities TWIC Packet Page Number - 47 •Regional Flood Protection •Community Drainage •Road System •Private Drainage Contra Costa County Stormwater Facilities TWIC Packet Page Number - 48 •Regional Flood Protection •Community Drainage •Road System •Private Drainage Contra Costa County Stormwater Facilities TWIC Packet Page Number - 49 53 Drainage Areas Drainage Areas TWIC Packet Page Number - 50 7 Drainage Area Benefit Assessments Drainage Area Benefit Assessments TWIC Packet Page Number - 51 17 Unincorporated Communities and 19 Cities Community Drainage TWIC Packet Page Number - 52 8 Regional Flood Control Entities •79 miles of channels •29 detention basins/dams •Protects $25 billion development in historic flood plains Regional Flood Protection TWIC Packet Page Number - 53 TWIC Packet Page Number - 54 Drainage Entity Maintenance Capital Improvement Capital Replacement Total Need Current Revenue Percent of Need Marsh Creek Watershed Facilities $ 800,000 $ 6,503,429 $ 1,150,162 $ 8,453,591 $ 1,376,994 16% Kellogg Creek $ 70,000 $ 44,905 $ 98,551 $ 213,457 $ - 0% Walnut Creek Watershed Facilities $ 16,000,000 $ 8,513,571 $ 22,926,853 $ 47,440,424 $ 4,318,998 9% San Pablo Creek $ 600,000 $ 15,000 $ 840,233 $ 1,455,233 $ - 0% Wildcat Creek $ 800,000 $ 2,987,571 $ 1,120,310 $ 4,907,882 $ 69,376 1% Rodeo Creek $ 350,000 $ 1,630,571 $ 501,825 $ 2,482,397 $ 35,819 1% Pinole Creek $ 100,000 $ 892,857 $ 139,161 $ 1,132,018 $ - 0% Rheem Creek $ 85,000 $ - $ 120,576 $ 205,576 $ 12,690 6% County-wide Drainage Facilities $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 6,905,145 $ 11,905,145 $ 3,076,000 26% Subtotals $ 23,805,000 $ 20,587,905 $ 33,802,817 $ 78,195,722 $ 8,889,877 11% Regional Planning $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,660,000 $ 2,602,932 56% Totals $ 23,805,000 $ 20,587,905 $ 33,802,817 $ 82,855,722 $ 11,492,809 14% Annual Funding Needs by Entity TWIC Packet Page Number - 55 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Funding Need Revenue History Projected Revenue Fiscal Year Ending Millions Annual Funding Needs TWIC Packet Page Number - 56 My boss’s tax bill, then adjusted to $500,000 value Stormwater Funding on Property Tax Bill County Flood Control: $46 = 0.75% TWIC Packet Page Number - 57 Stormwater Funding on Property Tax Bill Percent of Entire Tax Bill - Based on $500,000 home in Walnut Creek $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 Property TaxBill Allocation Schools: $3305 = 53% Bay Area Air Quality: $10 = 0.16% CCC Mosquito Abatement Dist.: $13= 0.21% County Clean Water: $35 = 0.57% County Flood Control: $46 = 0.75% BART: $55 = 0.88% EBMUD Water: $78 = 1.3% East Bay Regional Parks: $188 = 3.0% CCCSD Sewer: $472 = 7.6% City of Walnut Creek: $536 = 8.7% Fire/Emergency: $670 = 11% County General Fund: $779 = 13% TWIC Packet Page Number - 58 Local Funding Ability Fiscal Year 13-14 Projected Amounts Drainage Entity Taxed Parcels Revenue Average tax/parcel Funding need Average cost/parcel Marsh Creek Watershed Facilities 26,842 $1,376,994 $51 $8,453,591 $315 Kellogg Creek 694 $0 $0 $213,457 $308 Walnut Creek Watershed Facilities 115,666 $4,318,998 $37 $47,440,424 $410 San Pablo Creek 14,867 $0 $0 $1,455,233 $98 Wildcat Creek 4,783 $69,376 $15 $4,907,882 $1,026 Rodeo Creek 2,875 $35,819 $12 $2,482,397 $863 Pinole Creek 5,182 $0 $0 $1,132,018 $218 Rheem Creek 3,684 $12,690 $3 $205,576 $56 County-wide Drainage Facilities 52,926 $3,076,000 $58 $11,905,145 $225 FCD General Fund Parcels 335,292 $2,602,932 $8 $4,660,000 $14 Totals 562,811 $11,492,809 $20 $82,855,722 $147 TWIC Packet Page Number - 59 • Goal: “Utility” status for stormwater similar to water and wastewater •Exempt stormwater agencies from voter requirements like a water district or wastewater district •Need a Constitutional Amendment approved by the legislature •California voters will decide whether to grant an exemption for stormwater Stormwater Funding Initiative TWIC Packet Page Number - 60 •Legislation begins early 2015 •AB 1362 Gordon & Wolk •Statewide polling •Aiming for 2016 election •Coalition established to push Initiative forward •Need campaign to support ballot measure Stormwater Funding Initiative Process TWIC Packet Page Number - 61 Step One: Ballot measure approves exemption, grants same authority to local government as water and wastewater districts to fund operations. Step Two: Each local government agency/area, if desired, goes through a political process to: – Establish a “utility” –Determine scope and level of services –Determine rates –Determine rate structure Two Step Process TWIC Packet Page Number - 62 •It is not a TAX! •Clarification of Proposition 218 exemptions •Recognizes stormwater as a basic service •Completes adequate funding for our total water portfolio Stormwater Funding Initiative TWIC Packet Page Number - 63 •Continue Engagement in Statewide Stormwater Funding Initiative •Continue Conditions Assessments •Research other Funding Options •Continue Communication and Outreach Plan Goal is Sustainable Funding Pinole Creek For more information: www.cccounty.us/FCDreports Priorities Moving Forward TWIC Packet Page Number - 64 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:05/04/2015 Subject:ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit to Caltrans and MTC grant applications  Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: 2 Referral Name: Review applications for transportation, water & infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works Department  Presenter: Mary Halle, Department of Public Works Contact: Mary Halle (925)313-2327 Referral History: In 2014, the committee authorized submittal of applications for the first cycle of the ATP. Applications for Cycle 2 of ATP are due on June 1, 2015. Similar to last year, the PWD provides a staff report with recommendations for candidate projects and requests authorization to submit these applications to compete for both Statewide and Regional funding awards. Referral Update: The call for projects for the ATP was released on March 26, 2015 for Cycle 2 funding. The ATP program consists of State and Federal funds that represent a consolidation of programs including Safe Route 2 School, Bicycle Transportation Account, Transportation Alternatives Program, and several other programs packaged into one call for projects. Cycle 1 of this program was highly competitive with 771 applications submitted statewide and less than 20% awarded funding. The competitive rating criteria for the ATP program emphasize the following goals: Increased proportion of trips accomplished through walking and biking. Increased safety and mobility for non-motorized users. Advance active transportation efforts to achieve green-house-gas reduction goals Enhance public health. Ensure that disadvantage communities fully share in the benefits of the program. Provide a broad spectrum of benefits to many types of users. Competitive projects must also demonstrate the ability to deliver the project within the required time constraints and must provide the California Conservation Corps with an opportunity to partner on the project during the construction phase. Grant applications are due to the State and MTC on June 1, 2015. TWIC Packet Page Number - 65 RECOMMENDED CANDIDATE PROJECTS: The following projects are recommended to be submitted for ATP funding as these projects will be the most competitive. Fred Jackson First Mile/Last Mile Connection Project Fred Jackson Way First Mile/Last Mile Pedestrian Connection Project will remove barriers to pedestrians and provide access to affordable housing, transit, schools, employment, shopping, regional trails, senior center, and community facilities. The existing sidewalks in this area of North Richmond represent barriers to mobility impaired users as the sidewalk width is only three feet with power poles located in the middle of the sidewalk. The proposed First Mile/Last Mile Pedestrian Connection Project will eliminate this barrier and utilize excess lane width and parking width to narrow the road and expand the sidewalks to eight feet wide. The widening of sidewalks on Fred Jackson Way will extend approximately 1,400 feet from Grove Street to the Wildcat Creek Trail. The project may extend an additional 1,400 feet north of Wildcat Creek and Verde Elementary School to connect to the proposed Urban Tilth Project which is scheduled to begin construction in 2016. The Urban Tilth Project is an Organic Farm, non-profit organization which trains and employs local youth in organic farming techniques. Extension of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements to Brookside Drive will help residents commute to work or travel a short distance to purchase fresh produce. Staff is still evaluating the addition of this element to the current project scope. North Richmond is identified as a Community of Concern and a Priority Development Area. The proposed project will provide residents with improved access to safely walk their first mile and last mile of their commute. Mode choices will reduce impacts to the environment such as green-house gas emissions and at the same time improve public health by fighting obesity with an active lifestyle. Appian Way Complete Streets Project Staff has worked over the years with the community of El Sobrante and the City of Pinole in developing planning studies for Appian Way. Staff is currently developing the complete streets concept for Appian Way that was first identified in a study conducted by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) in collaboration with the County and the City of Pinole. This study was approved by the Board in December of 2013, as part of a General Plan Amendment in the El Sobrante area. Preliminary engineering plans have been prepared to determine the scope and location of bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Appian Way. The plans were presented at two public workshops and to the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council in the fall of last year. The planning efforts have included the full extent of Appian Way from San Pablo Dam Road to the City of Pinole; however, this grant application is focused on improvements on Appian Way, from San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Road. This proposed project would formalize pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure which includes closing the many gaps in sidewalk along this stretch of Appian Way and also proposes countermeasures for past pedestrian collisions. The project includes installation of bulb outs at major crossing locations to minimize the crossing distance for pedestrians which will also calm traffic. Consistent with complete streets policies, this project would assure that the transportation corridor TWIC Packet Page Number - 66 is accessible for all modes and all users with an emphasis on a pedestrian friendly environment and ADA access. This project is located adjacent to a Priority Development Area. Staff will continue to work with the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council in moving these planning efforts forward. Pacheco Boulevard Pedestrian Bridge/culvert extension east of Las Juntas Elementary This segment of Pacheco Boulevard is the last remaining gap in pedestrian facilities along the unincorporated portion of Pacheco Boulevard, west of Arthur Road. School administrators and the parent community at Las Juntas Elementary School requested this improvement because the secondary access through the adjacent residential neighborhood has been closed. Currently, the sidewalk and road shoulder terminates on each side of Vine Hill Creek and students must walk on the narrow road shoulder adjacent to high volume vehicle and truck traffic. The project will require several permits from various state and federal regulatory agencies in order to be allowed to work in the streambed to extend the culvert. The CTC criteria for Disadvantaged Communities were changed this last year so this area now qualifies as a Disadvantaged Community. Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project Similar to other projects considered, this proposed project would close the last remaining gap in pedestrian and bike facilities on Pacifica Avenue between Driftwood Drive and Port Chicago Highway in Bay Point. Completing the proposed section near Rio Vista Elementary School and Inlet Drive will satisfy all of the goals established with the ATP program as the improvements will encourage a mode shift towards non-vehicular travel, benefit a community of concern and serve all three public school within a quarter mile of the project: Riverview Middle School, Shore Acres Elementary, and Rio Vista Elementary School. This project rated well in Cycle 1 for ATP and was listed on the contingency list of projects. Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project Over the past several years, County staff has been working in close collaboration with Caltrans to improve safety and circulation of pedestrians and bicyclists along Bailey Road through the State Route 4 (SR4) Interchange. The Bay Point community has indicated that the existing pedestrian tunnel under the SR4 westbound loop off-ramp is significantly underutilized. The project proposes to remove the existing pedestrian tunnel and install sidewalk and Class II bike lanes along Bailey Road where the off-ramp currently rests. This will allow pedestrians and bicyclists to travel in a direct path along Bailey Road between Canal Road and the nearby Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station. The intersection of Bailey Road, the BART station entrance, and the SR4 eastbound loop off-ramp will also be augmented to provide safer circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists. The existing free flow right turn lanes will be removed from the off-ramp and BART entrance to eliminate conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians on Bailey Road. The Bay Point community will benefit from better pedestrian and bicycle access through the interchange to nearby Bel Air Elementary School, the Delta De Anza Regional Trail, and the Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station. PROJECTS CONSIDERED: All of the projects considered as an ATP candidate was assessed based upon the scoring rubric established by the CTC (below): TWIC Packet Page Number - 67 Demonstrate the project will successfully shift mode choice 30 points Reduce rate of injury 25 points Project developed through a community based process 15 points Ability to improve public health for targeted users 10 points Benefits a disadvantaged community 10 points The project is cost effective 5 points Local funds are leveraged 5 points The projects determined to be the most competitive are identified on the list of recommended projects. However all of the projects considered represent important infrastructure needs in our area. The following projects will be further developed and considered for future cycles of ATP grant funding. Danville Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Through a series of four workshops with the Alamo community, pedestrian improvements on Danville Boulevard through downtown Alamo were identified as a community priority along with various pedestrian safety improvements at school sites. The overall vision is to minimize conflict locations between vehicles and pedestrians along Danville Boulevard in the downtown area. This includes considerations to install a roundabout at Orchard Lane and extend curbs to create wider sidewalks and bulb outs to reduce crossing distance, along with increased signage and traffic calming measures. This “key” project for Alamo will require extensive community based design efforts that may be conducted prior to submittal of applications for ATP Cycle 3. San Miguel Drive Pedestrian Improvements This project would include expansion of road shoulder along San Miguel Drive to provide an area adjacent to the traveled way for pedestrians to walk from home to school, shopping, medical offices, a regional trail and community facilities. The proposed project would extend approximately 5,000 feet through relatively steep terrain which would require segments of retaining walls to support an expanded shoulder. The project would require removal of approximately 20 trees adjacent to the roadway. The community has shown interest in the project; however, they are currently researching how they might be able to work together to provide a less formal access area that will minimize impact to the area. Accordingly, staff will not move forward with an application for this cycle of ATP but continue to work with the community as their plans move forward. Olympic Boulevard Corridor Connection between IHT and Lafayette-Moraga Trail The County has been working with the cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette over the last two years to develop a trail connection concept plan to join two regional trails: Iron Horse Trail and the Lafayette/Moraga Trail. With the assistance of a consultant, several workshops have been conducted and a formal review process completed this year. DCD Staff is working with the consultant to identify a first phase project and potentially prepare an ATP application. Pedestrian Improvements at I-680/Treat Overcrossing County staff and CCTA have been working together over the past year to conduct community workshops and identify potential infrastructure improvements to serve bicyclists and pedestrians using the Treat Boulevard/I-680 corridor between the Iron Horse Trail, through the Interstate-680 (I-680) over-crossing ("over-crossing") near the Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART station area, and extending west to Geary Road/North Main Street in the City of Walnut Creek. The I-680/Treat Boulevard over-crossing is one of the main arteries into the Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART station area from areas of Walnut Creek west of the freeway. TWIC Packet Page Number - 68 The Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART Area Specific Plan identifies a need for a future bicycle and pedestrian circulation route along this segment of Treat Boulevard. The Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan contains policies and recommendations that encourage improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation access to, through, and from the Specific Plan area. The proposed Plan would support and help implement these policies and recommendations. In addition, the City of Walnut Creek adopted policies in their General Plan 2025 that support this project. The concept plan should be adopted within the coming months. Although the improvements identified through this planning process would be ideal for shifting travel modes to bicycle and pedestrian, it was determined the project status is not ready for the timeline required for an ATP award. Staff will continue working to further scope this project and ready it for the next cycle opportunity through ATP or Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Significant progress has been made over the last five years to construct a bike lane and shoulder on Camino Tassajara. This project proposes to finish the four remaining gaps in bike lane improvements north of Windemere Parkway. The completion of an extensive bike lane project would be a significant accomplishment to finally link all the pieces together. Past projects were funded through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) which focuses funding towards locations with a collision history. The segments already completed were those segments with the highest collision rate. Completing these gaps in one extensive project would represent a large project cost but also represent an overall cost savings as compared to completion of a separate environmental processes for each of the individual segments. It would be beneficial to have NEPA studies underway for this project prior to submittal of a grant application in order to assure project delivery on time. Port Chicago Highway/Willow Pass Road Bike & Pedestrian Improvement Project The proposed improvements include closing a gap in pedestrian and bicycle improvements within a hub in the center of Bay Point. The improved access proposed for pedestrians and bicyclists links immediately to the Delta De Anza Trail which connects to the BART station within a mile of the project. The Trail links the project to schools on Pacifica Avenue and also improves access to transit. The project is located in a Community of Concern and supported by adjacent school communities, the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee, and the project was initiated by the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council. NEPA and preliminary engineering are already underway with authorization to proceed through Caltrans from a Safe Route 2 School grant. This project also scored well in Cycle 1 of the ATP process and was placed on the contingency project list. MTC has indicated that there are funds remaining from Cycle 1 and this project was selected from the contingency list to receive funding. For this reason, this project was shifted from the Recommended Project List to the list of considered projects. NEXT STEPS: If authorized to proceed, staff will prepare preliminary designs and cost estimates for the application package. As described in past years, Staff maintains a data base of past grant applications, categorized by specific program and Supervisorial District. We will continue to monitor geographic equity in grant opportunities. Some funding opportunities are aimed towards disadvantaged communities or Priority Development Areas which focuses project selection to those areas; however, we strive to reach geographic equity as we balance opportunities through other available grant programs which allow a more broad geographic selection. TWIC Packet Page Number - 69 Staff will continue to develop the remaining projects with the intent of becoming more competitive in future cycles. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit to Caltrans and MTC grant applications for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Cycle 2. Fiscal Impact (if any): The ATP program no longer requires a local match for funding; however, one of the scoring categories is based upon leverage of local funds. In order to be competitive, stall will consider pledging local funds in the range of 10-15%, using Area of Benefit Funds when applicable. During preparation of the grant application, staff will determine a specific local match for each project that can be financially supported by the road fund account. Attachments No file(s) attached. TWIC Packet Page Number - 70 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:05/04/2015 Subject:AUTHORIZE Public Works Director to utilize Rule 20A work credits through PG&E to underground overhead electrical facilities within Orwood Bridge/WDCut Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 12 Referral Name: Monitor and report on the Underground Utilities Program.  Presenter: Mary Halle, Department of Public Works Contact: Mary Halle (925)313-2327 Referral History: This item has not been discussed at TWIC recently.  Referral Update: County Staff was approached by PG&E with the option to encase electrical facilities within the Orwood Bridge structure during the current bridge replacement work. As this work will require minimal work credits and will not require electrical panel conversions for private property, it does not warrant a public hearing. The project consists of replacing the existing Orwood Road Bridge located along Orwood Road over Werner Dredger Cut in East Contra Costa County. The proposed project will widen the bridge to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. The new bridge will be 220 feet long and 43 feet wide. The structure will provide two 12-foot-wide, traffic lanes, two 3-foot-wide shoulders, one 8-foot-wide bicycle / pedestrian lane along the southern edge, a 42-inch high exterior combined vehicle/pedestrian barrier, a 42-inch high interior combined vehicle/bicycle barrier, and a 42-inch high exterior bicycle railing. The replacement bridge will be constructed within the existing roadway easement. Additional rights, both temporary and permanent, will be required from adjacent parcels for construction and installation of work trestles, grading, scour/erosion protection, wingwalls, retaining walls, drainage improvements, staging areas and driveway connections. Construction of the new bridge is expected to begin June 1, 2015 and be completed in the winter of the following year. Replacement of the Orwood Road Bridge over Werner Dredger Cut will require removal and TWIC Packet Page Number - 71 relocation of the existing overhead utilities, including PG&E’s electric distribution lines. The future bridge configuration and proximity of the adjacent East Bay Municipal Utility District Mokelumne Aqueducts prevents placement of the overhead utilities along the north edge of the roadway as they are currently configured. A relocation of the overhead facilities to the south edge of the roadway would require additional utility easements and is opposed by the neighboring property owners on both sides of the bridge. Therefore, it was recommended that the most efficient location for the utilities will be in conduits within the bridge structure and in trenches within the roads leading up to the bridge on either side. Although PG&E is obligated to pay the full cost of relocating their facilities to accommodate the new bridge under the franchise agreement, PG&E is only obligated to relocate facilities to a “like condition” under the public utilities code. In other words, if the pre-project condition is an overhead arrangement, PG&E is only obligated to fund the costs to move the facility to an overhead arrangement in the final improved road facility. Since the underground arrangement is the only feasible option available for the PG&E facilities, the Rule 20A work credits are proposed to fund the increase in cost to relocate utilities underground as compared to the cost for an overhead relocation within the bridge project work area. The estimated increase in cost should not exceed $100,000 in Contra Costa’s Rule 20A work credits. The project decision to underground the utilities over the bridge structure and within the approach roadways will benefit the County by: avoiding right of way acquisition through private property who are opposed to the placement, allowing the bridge project to move forward as scheduled, and improves safety by avoiding placement of joint poles adjacent to the roadway at the bridge approaches. Rule 20A Background PG&E collects and annually allocates Rule 20A work credits to fund the undergrounding of electric facilities in central business and community areas. The County’s current account balance for Rule 20A work credits far exceeds the anticipated cost of our current utility undergrounding project, entitled, Underground Utility District 31 in Bay Point which is currently moving forward and anticipated for construction in 2017. As the utilization of Rule 20A credits for the Orwood Bridge Project would overall save the County time and money and since the value of work credits needed for the Orwood Road Bridge project account for only approximately one percent of the current balance and only twenty percent of accrued work credits in a single year, it is recommended that the County authorize PG&E to access the County’s work credits, not to exceed $100,000. The project decision to underground the utilities over the bridge structure will benefit the County by: avoiding right of way acquisition through private property, allowing the bridge project to move forward as scheduled, and improves safety by avoiding placement of joint poles adjacent to the roadway at the bridge approaches.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to utilize Rule 20A work credits through PG&E to underground overhead electrical facilities within the Orwood Bridge crossing at Werner Dredger Cut. Fiscal Impact (if any): TWIC Packet Page Number - 72 The use of Rule 20a work credits will have minimal effect on the current balance of work credits for Contra Costa County and will save the County funds overall in order to expedite the current bridge project and minimize impact to the adjacent property owners. Attachments No file(s) attached. TWIC Packet Page Number - 73 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:05/04/2015 Subject:Governor's Executive Order B-29-15 (Continued State of Emergency - Drought Conditions - Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.) Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1, 2, 5 Referral Name: Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure/Monitor EBMUD and Contra Costa Water District.../Review issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, including...water quality, supply...  Presenter: Public Works/Conservation and Development Contact: (925) 674-7833 Referral History: This item has not been recently discussed at TWIC.  Referral Update: At this time staff does not have a written report on this item. The situation is critical and developing, staff will provide an up-to-date verbal report at the TWIC meeting. Both staff and elected officials have been involved in a number of meetings that the include Contra Costa County Water Agency, Contra Costa Public Works Department, Contra Costa County Drought Task Force, County and Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES), the Department of Environmental Health, Contra Costa Water District, East Bay MUD, Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission, the State Water Board, and others. TWIC should discuss the recommendations and next steps from these meetings. June 1 is the deadline for all agencies to have a strategy in place for initiating the Executive Order, (see attachment). Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER Executive Order B-29-15 (Continued State of Emergency - Drought Conditions - Edmund G. Brown Jr.), DISCUSS a Contra Costa County response, and take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact currently. TWIC Packet Page Number - 74 Attachments 2015 Governor's Executive Order - Severe Drought TWIC Packet Page Number - 75 TWIC Packet Page Number - 76 TWIC Packet Page Number - 77 TWIC Packet Page Number - 78 TWIC Packet Page Number - 79 TWIC Packet Page Number - 80 TWIC Packet Page Number - 81 TWIC Packet Page Number - 82 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:05/04/2015 Subject:CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1 Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee referral list and meeting agenda. Referral Update: In developing transportation related legislative issues and proposals to bring forward for consideration by TWIC, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors, references the County's adopted Legislative Platforms (please see attached TRANSPORTATION Pages from ADOPTED 2015 STATE - FED Legislative Platform--approved 1.20.15.pdf), coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner agencies and organizations, and consults with the Committee itself. Recommendations are summarized in the Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s) section at the end of this report and specific references to recommendations are underlined in the report below.  This report includes three sections, 1) LOCAL, 2) STATE, and 3) FEDERAL: 1) LOCAL A) Contra Costa Transportation Authority's 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Update & Potential New Sales Tax Measure (2016). This is a standing item for the foreseeable future. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is in the process of developing the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and associated environmental impact report (EIR). Originally, the CTP and EIR were to be adopted and certified in early 2015. However, in order to adequately respond to comments received on both documents, CCTA is delaying adoption. CCTA staff is bringing a revised scope of work for both the CTP and EIR to the CCTA Board in May.  Despite the delay in the finalization of the CTP and EIR, CCTA took the two following actions in TWIC Packet Page Number - 83 March; 1) the Board decided to proceed with the development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for inclusion in a possible 2016 ballot measure, and 2) approved the Principles for the Development of the TEP (Principles). The TEP addresses the funding shortfall and transportation system needs as identified in the draft CTP. Specifically, the basis for the decision to move ahead with the TEP is as follows: •By 2018 approximately 82 percent of the Measure J project funds will have been expended, •any remaining project revenues will go towards repayment of bonds, •the lack of new funding for major capital projects at the State and federal level, and •the need to augment maintenance and operational programs (as evidenced by the draft CTP).The Principles are below, and a detailed discussion is included in the attached CCTA staff report (please see attached CCTA TEP Items.pdf). 1. Vision and Goals. Support the vision and goals of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2. Public Participation. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will conduct a comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the communities throughout Contra Costa about the transportation priorities important for our communities. 3. Accountability. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue its commitment to accountability and transparency. 4. Consensus Based Planning. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan that reflects consensus between the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the public, stakeholders, regional transportation planning committees, cities, towns, Contra Costa County and transit agencies. 5. Balanced Approach. Balance the needs and benefits for all people and areas of Contra Costa to provide a healthy environment and strong economy, considering impact on vehicle miles travelled and greenhouse gas emissions, supporting transportation for livable communities’ projects, while accounting for future demographic and technological change and innovation. 6. Public Health. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority recognizes that transportation policy can result in a reduction of transportation impacts on the environment and provide complementary public health benefits. 7. Maintenance of the Existing System. Maintain the existing highway, road, bicycle, pedestrian and transit systems in a safe and operable condition. 8. Use of Local Dollars to Attract Other Funds. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue to identify federal, State and regional funding opportunities that can maximize the amount of overall funds available for transportation projects in Contra Costa. 9. Commitment to Growth Management and Cooperative Planning. New development should comprehensively address infrastructure improvement needs. The Transportation Expenditure Plan will carry forward Contra Costa’s Growth Management Program and adherence to the Urban Limit Line Policy, as adopted. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the TEP process, the associated Principles, and direct staff as appropriate including reporting to the Board of Supervisors on the issue. TWIC Packet Page Number - 84 2) STATE This Month the State report includes the status of legislation of interest to the County, topics include transportation funding and school safety. Attached to this report are a complete list of tracked legislation (please see attached May 2015 TWIC Tracked Legislation.pdf) and a subset of that list that staff is emphasizing (please see attached Positions on Legislation of Interest-2015.pdf). Mark Watts, the County's legislative advocate, and County staff will be present to report verbally on the initiatives below: A) Transportation Revenue Discussion: The Legislature and Governor have elevated transportation funding to the top of the agenda for 2015, as there has been a frenzy of activity on the topic. Assembly Member Toni Atkins (78th District) announced a five year transportation funding package in February, Senator Jim Beall (15th District) introduced a specific proposal (please see attached SB 16) in mid-April, and additional proposals are anticipated. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) is organizing a comprehensive outreach and advocacy effort. The CSAC advocacy package is included in this packet (please see attached Transportation Advocacy Packetv2.pdf). RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should CONSIDER and DISCUSS the CSAC guidance, and take ACTION as appropriate. Assembly Democrat Funding Plan, developed by Speaker Atkins and Assemblymember Frazier. County Position: Pending formal proposal and discussion/action by TWIC/Board of Supervisors (BOS) Discussion: A detailed proposal is anticipated to be released after the publication of this TWIC report. Staff understands the following components are included in the package: •$10 billion over 5 years; •Return Truck Weight fees of $1 billion annual; •New Road Fee of approximately $50 per vehicle; •New fees offset weight fee recapture and provide net of $1 billion; •Weight fees plus net revenue from new road fee = $2 billion annually. SB 16: (Beall) Transportation funding County Position: Pending discussion/action See attached: SB16 (Beall).pdf B) School Siting & Safety:  SB 632: (Cannella - CoAuthors-Baker/Frazier) Vehicles: prima facie speed limits: schools. County Position: SUPPORT (please see attached CCC BOS Leg Letters April2015.pdf) Discussion: This bill was based on a proposal developed by Contra Costa County in 2014/2015 with support from CSAC. The bill has generated a substantial amount of interest and will be a two year bill. Staff is working with legislative staff and advocacy organizations on: a re-write to address concerns, and building a support coalition including private, non-profit, and local/state agencies.  The bill supports the "Vision Zero" concept which is gaining substantial traction in the United TWIC Packet Page Number - 85 States. In summary, it is a focused effort to radically reduce or eliminate injuries and deaths from traffic collisions. Kaiser Permanente announced funding an advocacy effort recently (please see attached Vision Zero Network Launches To Advance Safe Streets.pdf). Staff has reached out requesting support for SB 632 and related school safety efforts.  SB 313: (Galgiani) Local government: zoning ordinances: school districts  County Position: SUPPORT (CCC BOS Leg Letters April2015.pdf) Discussion: The California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) has been engaged for some years to reform school siting practices in an effort similar to the County's. Staff was approached by the CFBF legislative advocate asking for County support on SB 313 which is sponsoring the bill. County staff found the bill to be consistent with our adopted platform and observed that their proposed statutory fix is nearly identical to the language the County proposed to AM Joan Buchanan in 2014. Given this, County staff (Conservation and Development and Agriculture) worked with the County Administrator's Office to draft a letter of support (CCC BOS Leg Letters April2015.pdf).  AB 1344: (Jones) County office of education: charter schools Staff RECOMMENDATION: OPPOSE Discussion: The bill grants zoning/planning exemptions and rights to charter schools that public schools currently enjoy. It is these exemptions and limits that the County, and many others which now includes the State itself, are actively attempting to limit or modify. From a policy standpoint, this bill is counter to state and local policies. SB 114: (Liu) Education facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016 Staff RECOMMENDATION: WATCH Discussion: This bill would provide funding for the now nearly exhausted school construction and modernization program. As previously discussed at TWIC, the best hope for the implementation of effective policies to improved school siting practices is to link those new policies to the primary funding mechanism. There does seem to be some movement on raising the awareness of the need for school siting reform. In addition to the comments from the State Allocation Board as seen in the attached 3/31/15 letter to Senator's Block & Liu, the CFBF is engaged, and the California State Department of Public Health (CDPH) is getting involved. CDPH staff requested an update on the school siting reform activities from County staff in April. 3) FEDERAL The current extension for the primary federal surface transportation funding authorization (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century [MAP-21]) expires on May 31, 2015. There continues to be constant speculation and stories on how to address the impending expiration but nothing concrete. As the deadline gets closer, acceptance of the inevitability of a continuing resolution grows despite the widely acknowledged need for a new, comprehensive transportation funding package. Related : See attached letter (please see attached DF to Inhofe + Boxer re bridge funding 2015 04 22.pdf) from Senator Diane Feinstein to Senators Barbara Boxer and James Inhofe (Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works) regarding funding for local bridges on the Federal Aid Highway System.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): TWIC Packet Page Number - 86 Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER Report on Local, State and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report above. Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact. Attachments TRANSPORTATION Pages from ADOPTED 2015 STATE - FED Legislative Platform--approved 1.20.15.pdf CCTA TEP Items.pdf May 2015 TWIC Tracked Legislation.pdf Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2015.pdf SB16 (Beall).pdf Transportation Advocacy Packetv2.pdf CCC BOS Leg Letters April2015.pdf Vision Zero Network Launches To Advance Safe Streets.pdf DF to Inhofe+Boxer reBridgeFunding 2015 04 22pdf TWIC Packet Page Number - 87 Adopted 2015 Platform January 20, 2015 26 141. SUPPORT continued funding for the California Library Literacy and English Acquisition Services Program, which provides matching funds for public library adult literacy programs that offer free, confidential, one-on-one basic literacy instruction to English- speaking adults who want to improve their reading, writing, and spelling skills. Telecommunications Issues 142. SUPPORT clean-up legislation on AB 2987 that provides for local emergency notifications similar to provisions in cable franchises for the last 20 years. Currently our franchises require the cable systems to carry emergency messages in the event of local emergencies. With the occurrence of several local refinery incidents, this service is critical for Contra Costa. Under federal law, Emergency Alert System requirements leave broad discretion to broadcasters to decide when and what information to broadcast, emergency management offices to communicate with the public in times of emergencies. 143. SUPPORT preservation of local government ownership and control of the local public rights-of-way. Currently, local government has authority over the time, place, and manner in which infrastructure is placed in their rights-of-way. The California Public Utilities Commission is considering rulemaking that would give them jurisdiction to decide issues between local government and telecommunication providers. Transportation Issues 144. SUPPORT increased flexibility in the use of transportation funds. 145. SUPPORT regional coordination that provides for local input in addressing transportation needs. Coordinated planning and delivery of public transit, paratransit, and rail services will help ensure the best possible service delivery to the public. Regional coordination also will be needed to effectively deal with the traffic impacts of Indian gaming casinos such as those in West County. Regional coordination also will be essential to complete planning and development of important regional transportation projects that benefit the state and local road system such as State Route 239, improvements to Vasco Road, completion of remaining segments of the Bay Trail, improvements to the Delta DeAnza Regional Trail, and the proposed California Delta Trail. There may be interest in seeking enhanced local input requirements for developing the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area mandated by SB 375 for greenhouse gas reduction. It is important that the regional coordination efforts are based on input gathered from the local level, to ensure the regional approach does not negatively impact local communities. “Top-down” regional planning efforts would be inconsistent with this goal. 146. SUPPORT efforts to improve safety throughout the transportation system. The County supports new and expanded projects and programs to improve safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and wheelchair users, as well as projects to improve safety on high-accident transportation facilities such as Vasco Road. Data on transportation safety would be improved by including global positioning system (GPS) location data for every reported TWIC Packet Page Number - 88 Contra Costa County 27 accident to assist in safety analysis and planning. The County also supports the expansion of school safety improvement programs such as crossing guards, revised school zone references in the vehicle code, Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) grants, efforts to improve the safety, expansion and security of freight transportation system including public and private maritime ports, airports, rail yards, railroad lines, rail bridges and sidings. The County also supports limits or elimination of public liability for installing traffic-calming devices on residential neighborhood streets. 147. SUPPORT funding or incentives for the use of renewable resources in transportation construction projects. The County seeks and supports grant programs, tax credits for manufacturers, state purchasing programs, and other incentives for local jurisdictions to use environmentally friendly materials such as the rubberized asphalt (made from recycled tires) that the County has used as paving material on San Pablo Dam Road and Pacheco Boulevard. 148. SUPPORT streamlining the delivery of transportation safety projects. The length of time and amount of paperwork should be reduced to bring a transportation safety project more quickly through the planning, engineering and design, environmental review, funding application, and construction phases, such as for Vasco Road. This could include streamlining the environmental review process and also streamlining all state permitting requirements that pertain to transportation projects. Realistic deadlines for use of federal transportation funds would help local jurisdictions deliver complex projects without running afoul of federal time limits which are unrealistically tight for complex projects. 149. SUPPORT efforts to coordinate development of state-funded or regulated facilities such as courts, schools, jails, roads and state offices with local planning. The County supports preserving the authority of Public Works over County roads by way of ensuring the Board of Supervisors’ control over County roads as established in the Streets & Highways Code (Ch2 §940) is not undermined. This includes strongly opposing any action by a non-local entity that would ultimately dilute current Board of Supervisors discretion relative to road design and land use. 150. SUPPORT efforts to coordinate planning between school districts, the state, and local jurisdictions for the purposes of: (1) locating and planning new schools, (2) funding programs that foster collaboration and joint use of facilities, and (3) financing off-site transportation improvements for improved access to existing schools. The County supports the California Department of Education’s current effort to better leverage school facilities in developing sustainable communities. Related to this effort, the County supports reform of school siting practices by way of legislative changes related to any new statewide school construction bond authorization. The County takes the position that reform components should include bringing school siting practices and school zone references in the vehicle code into alignment with local growth management policies, safe routes to school best practices, State SB 375 principles, and the State Strategic Growth Council’s “Health in All Policies Initiative.” TWIC Packet Page Number - 89 Adopted 2015 Platform January 20, 2015 28 151. SUPPORT regional aviation transportation planning efforts for coordinated aviation network planning to improve service delivery. Regional aviation coordination could also improve the surrounding surface transportation system by providing expanded local options for people and goods movement. 152. SUPPORT efforts to increase waterborne transport of goods and obtaining funds to support this effort. The San Francisco to Stockton Ship Channel is a major transportation route for the region, providing water access to a large number of industries and the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton. A project is underway to deepen the channel, providing additional capacity to accommodate increasing commerce needs of the Ports and providing better operational flexibility for the other industries. Increased goods movement via waterways has clear benefits to congestion management on highways and railroads (with resultant air quality benefits). 153. SUPPORT legislative and administrative measures to enhance rail safety, increase state oversight of railroad bridges, provide funding for the training of first responders, and implement regulations that increase tank car safety standards for cars transporting crude oil and other hazardous materials, and regulations that require railroads to share data with state emergency managers and local responders. Veterans Issues 154. SUPPORT legislation and budget actions that will continue the state's annual local assistance for County Veterans Service Offices at a minimum of the $5.6 million level. The eventual goal is to fully fund CVSOs by appropriating the full $11 million in local assistance funding as reflected in Military and Veterans Code Section 972.1(d). County Veterans Service Offices (CVSOs) play a vital role in the local veteran community, not only within the Veterans Affairs claims process, but in other aspects as well. This includes providing information about all veterans’ benefits (Federal, State and local), as well as providing claims assistance for all veteran-related benefits, referring veterans to ancillary community resources, providing hands-on development and case management services for claims and appeals and transporting local veterans to VA facilities. 155. SUPPORT legislation and budget actions that will provide veterans organizations with resources to make necessary repairs to, or replacement of, their meeting halls and facilities. Across California, the meeting halls and posts of Veterans Service Organizations such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars serve as unofficial community centers. Many of these facilities are not compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility standards, are not earthquake retrofitted, or have deteriorated in recent years due to declining membership and reduced rental revenues as a result of the economic downturn. The County will support legislation that would create a competitive grant program for veterans’ organizations, classified by the IRS as 501c19 non-profit organizations and comprised primarily of past or present members of the United States Armed Forces and their family members, to use for repairs and improvements to their existing facilities. TWIC Packet Page Number - 90 2 2015 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Each year, the Board of Supervisors adopts a Federal Legislative Platform that establishes priorities and policy positions with regard to potential federal legislation and regulation. The 2015 Federal Legislative Platform identifies 10 funding needs for FFY 2016 and 4 requests for the reauthorization of the federal transportation act. FEDERAL FUNDING NEEDS The following list is a preliminary ranking in priority order. Adjustments to the priority order may be appropriate once the President releases his budget. The current priority ranking gives preference to those projects that we know will not be included in the President’s budget, with lower priority to Army Corps of Engineers projects which may be in the budget. Also, Army Corps project requests will be adjusted to be consistent with Corps capability. 1. Delta LTMS-Pinole Shoal Management, CA – $4,500,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue a Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for levee rehabilitation, dredging and sediment reuse in the Delta, similar to the effort completed in the Bay area. Levee work, reuse of dredged sediments, dredging and other activities have been difficult to accomplish due to permitting problems and a divergence of priorities related to water quality. Significant levee rehabilitation is critical to the long term stability of these levees and to water quality and supply for the 23 million Californians who depend upon this water. Stakeholders from the Department of Water Resources, Ports, Army Corps, levee reclamation districts, local governments and other interested parties are participating in the LTMS. A Sediment or Dredged Material Management Office will be established, and in the longer term, preparation of a Sediment Management Plan will consider beneficial reuse of dredged materials as one potential source of sediment for levees. (Note: $500,000 appropriated for FFY 2005; $225,000 for FFY 2006; $500,000 for FFY 2007; $462,000 for FFY 2008; $235,000 for FFY 2009; $100,000 for FFY 2010; $0 FFY 2011-2013; $930,000 FFY 2014.) 2. Safe and Bright Futures for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence – $400,000 to implement the federally funded plan to diminish the damaging effects of domestic violence on children and adolescents and to stop the cycle of intentional injury and abuse. A three year assessment and planning process resulted in a program plan that is working to align and create a system responsive to the needs of children exposed to domestic violence through identification, early intervention; raising awareness; training professionals; utilizing and disseminating data; establishing consultation teams to support providers in intervening and using best practices; and developing targeted services. Exposure to domestic violence reshapes the human brain and is the primary cause of trauma in children’s lives. It influences personality, shapes personal skills and behaviors, impacts academic performance, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law enforcement, civil/criminal justice and social services. Exposure to domestic violence is associated with greater rates of substance abuse, mental illness, and adverse health outcomes in adulthood, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law enforcement, civil/criminal justice and social services. (Note: $428,000 appropriated for FFY 2009; $550,000 for FFY 2010.) TWIC Packet Page Number - 91 Adopted 2015 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County 3 3. Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine Clean-up – $483,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the Technical Planning Process for the clean-up project at the source and downstream area of the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. The project will clean up the mine in a cost effective, environmentally-sound manner with minimal liability exposure for the County and involving all stakeholders through an open community-based process. The Corps initiated a Technical Planning Process in June 2008 to develop a preliminary remediation plan, identify applicable permit and environmental data requirements and complete a data collection and documentation program for the clean-up of the area impacted by the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. Several phases of the planning process have been completed, and this appropriation will allow the Corps to continue the planning process, which will include looking at watershed issues downstream of the mercury mine. The mine site is located on private property on the northeast slope of Mt. Diablo at the upper end of the Marsh Creek watershed. (Note: $517,000 appropriated in FFY 2008.) 4. Bay-Delta Area Studies, Surveys and Technical Analysis – $2,500,000 for the Delta Counties Coalition to carry out technical analysis and planning associated with participation in the Bay- Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) or implementation of any projects resulting from the Plan. The technical analysis and planning will focus on issues related to the planning of water delivery projects and conservation plans that are included in the BDCP. 5. CALFED Bay Delta Reauthorization Act Levee Stability Improvement Program (LSIP) – $8,000,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers for levee rehabilitation planning and project implementation. The CALFED Reauthorization Act, passed in January 2004, authorized $90 million, which may be appropriated for levee rehabilitation work. The Corps has prepared a “180-Day Report” which identifies projects and determines how these funds would be spent. Since that time, the breakdown of CALFED, coupled with the Army Corps’ attempts to define an appropriate and streamlined process, has delayed funding and resultant levee work. (Note: $500,000 appropriated for FFY 2006; $400,000 for FFY 2007; $4.92M for FFY 2008; $4.844M for FFY 2010.) 6. Suisun Bay Channel/New York Slough Maintenance Dredging – $8,700,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance dredging of this channel to the authorized depth of minus 35 feet. Continued maintenance is essential for safe transport of crude oil and other bulk materials through the San Francisco Bay, along the Carquinez Straits and into the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. Dredging for this channel section is particularly costly due to requirements on placement of dredged materials in upland environments. An oil tanker ran aground in early 2001 due to severe shoaling in a section of this channel, which creates a greater potential for oil spills (Note: $4.559 M appropriated for FFY 2005; $4.619M for FFY 2006; $2.82M for FFY 2007; $2.856M for FFY 2008; $2.768M for FFY 2009; $3.819M for FFY 2010; $2.715M for FFY 2012; $2.495M for FFY 2013; $2.026M for FFY 2014.) 7. San Pablo/Mare Island Strait/Pinole Shoal Channel Maintenance Dredging – $8,400,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance dredging of the channel to the authorized depth of minus 35 feet. The Pinole Shoal channel is a major arterial for vessel transport through the San Francisco Bay region, serving oil refineries and bulk cargo which is transported as far east as Sacramento and Stockton. (Note: $1M appropriated for FFY 2005; $2.988M for FFY 2006; $896,000 for FFY 2007; $1.696M for FFY 2008; $1.058M for FFY 2009; $2.518M for FFY 2010; $3.402M for FFY 2012; $499,000 for FFY 2013; $780,000 for FFY 2014.) TWIC Packet Page Number - 92 4 8. San Francisco to Stockton (J. F. Baldwin and Stockton Channels) Ship Channel Deepening – $2,700,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue the Deepening Project. Deepening and minor realignment of this channel will allow for operational efficiencies for many different industries, an increase in waterborne goods movement, reduced congestion on roadways, and air quality benefits. This work focused on establishing economic benefit to the nation and initial salinity modeling in the channel sections. The following steps include detailed channel design, environmental documentation, cost analysis, additional modeling, and dredged material disposal options. This project continues to have enormous implications for oil refineries, ports, and other industries that depend on safe ship transport through the channel. (Note: $500,000 appropriated for FFY 2005; $200,000 for FFY 2006; $200,000 for FFY 2007; $403,000 for FFY 2008; $1.34M for FFY 2009; $0 for FFY 2010; $0 for FFY 2011; $800,000 for FFY 2012; $1,546,900 for FFY 2013; $800,000 for FFY 2014.) 9. State Route 4 / Old River Bridge Study – $1,000,000 to work with San Joaquin County and the State of California on a study of improving or replacing the Old River Bridge along State Route 4 on the Contra Costa / San Joaquin County line. The study would determine a preferred alternative for expanding or replacing the existing bridge, which is part of State Route 4. The existing bridge is narrow, barely allowing two vehicles to pass each other, and is aligned on a difficult angle relative to the highway on either side, requiring motorists to make sharp turns onto and off of the bridge. The project would improve safety and traffic flow over the bridge. (Note: no appropriations for this project as yet.) 10. Knightsen/Byron Area Transportation Study - $300,000 to re-evaluate the Circulation Element of the County General Plan (GP) to improve its consistency with the Urban Limit Line (ULL) and related policies that ensure preservation of non-urban, agricultural, open space and other areas identified outside the ULL. Policies will be evaluated to provide a more efficient and affordable circulation system for the study area, serve all transportation user-groups, support the local agricultural economy and accommodate the commuter traffic destined for employment centers outside the study area. Zoning and development regulations would be updated to implement the study recommendations. REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), expired in 2009. SAFETEA-LU was renewed on ten occasions until the new program, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) - a two year bill – was signed into law on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 is a 27-month bill that expired September 30, 2014 and was reauthorized until May 2015. The following are priority projects for which funding will need to be secured in the next multi-year transportation bill. 1. Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project -- $18 million for improvements to a 2.5-mile accident-prone section of Vasco Road. Project components include widening the roadway to accommodate a concrete median barrier and shoulders on either side of the barrier, construction of the barrier, and extension of an existing passing lane. The project will eliminate cross-median accidents which have caused numerous fatalities in recent years, and will provide increased opportunities for vehicles to safely pass (unsafe passing is a major cause of accidents and fatalities on this segment of the increasingly busy two-lane undivided road). The project will include provisions for wildlife undercrossings to preserve migration patterns. The proposed TWIC Packet Page Number - 93 Adopted 2015 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County 5 improvements will complement a $10 million completed project that was funded with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. 1.b Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project Continuation -- $30 million for improvements to the remaining 9 miles of accident-prone sections of Vasco Road. Alameda County has been working on constructing improvements in their jurisdiction and it would be desirable for the two counties to work together to complete the gap left in the concrete median barrier near the County line. In addition to completing this gap, Contra Costa desires to extend the concrete median barrier further north of the recently completed median barrier project to the Camino Diablo Road intersection. 2. North Richmond Truck Route -- $25 million to construct a new road or other alternate access improvements that will provide truck access between businesses and the Richmond Parkway, moving the truck traffic away from a residential neighborhood and elementary school. This project will increase safety, improve public health around the school and residential area by reducing diesel particulate emissions from those areas, increase livability of the neighborhood, improve local access to the Wildcat Creek Regional Trail, stimulate economic development in the industrial area of the community and provide a better route for trucks traveling to and from the Richmond Parkway. Several potential alignments have been identified, one of which was developed through a community planning process funded through an Environmental Justice planning grant from Caltrans. 3. Eastern Contra Costa Trail Network -- $11 million for joint planning, environmental review, right-of-way acquisition and construction of a coordinated network of trails for walking, bicycling and equestrian uses in eastern Contra Costa County including facilities and projects improving access to existing or planned transit stations. Eligible trails include, but are not limited to: (1) the Mokelumne Trail overcrossing of the State Route 4 Bypass ($6 million); (2) Contra Costa segments of the Great California Delta Trail ($3 million); (3) a transit supportive network of East Contra Costa trails in unincorporated County areas and the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley and Pittsburg ($1 million); and Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Path ($1 million). 4. eBART Extension Next Phase Study/Environmental and Engineering -- $10 million for environmental review and engineering work on the project identified in the Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s (BART) eBART Next Segment Study in eastern Contra Costa County. With regard to additional stations and eBART rail corridor alignment tasks may include, but not necessarily be limited to, completion of environmental review, and partial completion of engineering. Additional work may include, but not necessarily be limited to, evaluation and refinement of alignment and stations, development of capital and operating costs, land use analysis, completion of environmental review including appropriate mitigations, development of preliminary engineering, and public outreach. (Potential Program: FTA – New Starts, FHWA/FTA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality)  Rural Road Funding Program – The County supports the creation of a new funding program that will provide funds for converting or upgrading rural roads into more modern and safer roads that can better handle increasing commuter traffic in growing areas, such as East County. These roads do not often compete well in current grant programs because they do not carry as many TWIC Packet Page Number - 94 6 vehicles as roads in more congested urban or suburban areas. As a result, improvements such as widenings (turn lanes, clear zone/recovery areas, etc.), realignments, drainage improvements and intersection modifications often go unfunded, leaving such roads with operational and safety problems as well as insufficient capacity.  Transportation Funding for Disabled, Low-income, and Elderly Persons – Transit services for elderly, disabled, and low-income persons are provided by the County, by some cities, by all of the bus transit operators, and by many community organizations and non-profits that provide social services. Increased funding is needed to provide and maintain more service vehicles, operate them longer throughout the day, upgrade the vehicle fleet and dispatching systems, improve coordination between public providers and community groups that also provide such services to their clients, and expand outreach programs to inform potential riders of the available services, among other needs. The County supports continuation and increased funding levels for federal funding programs dedicated to transit services for these population groups. All of the demographic trends point to a growing need for such services in the future. For example, the 65- and-older population in the Bay Area is projected to more than double by the year 2030.  Surface Transportation Program/Highway Bridge Funding – The County supports the continuation of funding levels consistent with the Highway Bridge funding program in previous transportation funding bills that will provide funds for rehabilitating and replacing our aging bridges. The County has several aging bridges with deficient sufficiency ratings. Without federal transportation funding, these expensive projects would be deferred because they often exceed the County’s funding capacity. Many of the bridges are on critical commute corridors, goods movement corridors, inter-regional routes, and farm to market routes. Failure of these important transportation assets can cause major disruptions to the transportation network. The County would also support federal funding for the rehabilitation and replacement of rail bridges. APPROPRIATIONS AND GRANTS – SUPPORT POSITIONS The following support positions are listed in alphabetic order and do not reflect priority order. Please note that new and revised positions are highlighted. Buchanan Field Airport – The County approved a Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport in October 2008, which includes a Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise Study and a Business Plan for project implementation. The comprehensive planning effort has ideally positioned Buchanan Field Airport for future aviation (general aviation, corporate aviation and commercial airline service) and aviation-related opportunities. To facilitate the economic development potential, the Business Plan prioritizes necessary infrastructure improvements for Buchanan Field Airport (including potential replacement of the 60 year old control tower). Further, as the Airport is surrounded by urban residential uses, enhancing the noise program infrastructure is deemed essential for balancing the aviation needs with those of the surrounding communities. The Federal government, primarily through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), provides funding for planning, analysis, and infrastructure improvements. The County will support funding in all these areas for protection and enhancement of our aviation facility and network. TWIC Packet Page Number - 95 Adopted 2015 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County 7 Byron Airport – The Byron Airport is poised for future general and corporate aviation and aviation-related development, but that future growth and full build out of the airport as shown in the Master Plan is dependent upon utility and infrastructure improvements both on and around the Airport. The Byron Airport Business Plan prioritizes infrastructure and possible additional land acquisition to assist the Byron Airport in fulfilling its aviation and economic development potential. The Federal government, primarily through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), provides funding for planning, analysis, infrastructure improvements and aviation land acquisition. The County will support funding in all these areas for protection and enhancement of our aviation facility and network. East Bay Regional Communication System (EBRCS ) – A project to build the East Bay Regional Communication System (EBRCS), a P25 Radio System infrastructure for Contra Costa and Alameda County. This system will provide interoperable voice communication in both the 800 MHz and 700 MHz frequencies to all public safety and public services agencies within Contra Costa County and Alameda County. EBRCS will allow for interoperable voice communication within the region that can be integrated with other P25 radio systems outside the geographical area of the EBRCS, for example, with San Francisco. This project will provide Level 5 communications which is the highest level of interoperable communications. This project will allow for everyday interoperable communications, not just various levels of interoperability during big events or disasters in which radio caches are deployed or gateway devices used. Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program – Advocate/support funding up to or above the authorized amount of $2 billion for the EECBG Program established and authorized under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. The County’s ability to continue offering programs/services improving energy efficiency and conservation while also creating jobs is contingent upon additional federal funding being appropriated to the EECBG Program in 2012 and beyond. Contra Costa and other local governments have identified and designed many successful programs and financial incentives targeting both the private and public sector which are now being implemented using EECBG funding authorized through the ARRA of 2009. Funding for the EECBG program is necessary to ensure the nation’s local governments can continue their leadership in creating clean energy jobs, reducing energy consumption and curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lanes – $4.5 million for constructing northbound and $20 million for constructing southbound truck climbing lanes on Kirker Pass Road, a heavily used arterial linking residential areas in eastern Contra Costa with job centers and the freeway system in central Contra Costa. The truck climbing lanes are needed to improve traffic flow and will also have safety benefits. The $4.5 million will close a funding gap and augment secured funding: $6 million in Measure J (local sales tax measure) funds and $2.6 million in State Transportation Improvement Program funds. The $20 million is the total cost of the southbound truck climbing lane segment. TWIC Packet Page Number - 96 8 Northern Waterfront Initiative – support funding for a short-line railroad feasibility study for the Northern Waterfront Corridor and a Land-Use Cost-Benefit/Fiscalization study for the Northern Waterfront. Regional Habitat Planning and Conservation – $85 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund” to keep pace with land costs and the increasing number of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) throughout the country. The County will support funding for the Fund to be restored to $85 million, the 2010 funding level. This will provide much needed support to regional HCPs in California and nationally, including the East Contra Costa County HCP. Given the prolific growth in the number of regional HCPs, the Fund needs to be increased even more substantially in subsequent years. The East Contra Costa County HCP has received $35.5 million from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund in the past eight years and continuing this grant support is of vital importance to the successful implementation of that Plan. The County will pursue increasing appropriations to the Fund in partnership with numerous counties in northern and southern California and will support requests of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition to increase the Fund up to $85 million. The County will also request that the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) include this Fund increase as a priority on CSAC’s federal platform. San Francisco Bay Improvement Act – $1 billion restoration bill authored by Congresswoman Jackie Speier in 2010 but not passed. The bill, if passed, will help finance restoration of more than 100,000 acres of the Bay's tidal wetlands. Funds from the bill would implement a restoration plan that was adopted in 1993. In addition to benefits for fish and wildlife, wetlands restoration will create new jobs and provide regional economic infusions, as well as protect against the effects of sea level rise on the Bay's shores. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area – a bill authored by Senator Dianne Feinstein in 2010 but not passed. The bill, if passed, will authorize and fund a National Heritage Area (NHA) for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The NHA designation would be a first step in providing federal resources to agencies in the Delta for economic development and environmental protection. Contra Costa County supports the legislation and participated in a feasibility study for the NHA through our seat on the Delta Protection Commission, which completed the study in 2012. Vasco Road-Byron Highway Connector – $30 million for design, engineering and construction of an east-west connector road between two major arterials that link Contra Costa County with Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. The Vasco Road-Byron Highway Connector will improve traffic circulation and linkages in the southeastern portion of the County and will provide a new route for truck traffic that will remove a significant portion of truck trips which currently pass through the rural community of Byron. Vasco Road is designated as State Route 84, and Byron Highway is under study as the potential alignment for future State Route 239. TWIC Packet Page Number - 97 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Subject Approval of Principles for Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan Summary of Issues At its meeting in March, the Authority directed staff to undertake tasks to initiate the development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) that would begin to address the major shortfall in funding identified in the Draft 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). Development of a TEP should be aligned with the Vision, Goals and Strategies identified in the draft 2014 CTP, as well as reflect the values that have governed cooperative planning over the life of Measures C and J. Accordingly, staff has developed a proposed set of principles for consideration by the Authority to help guide the TEP effort. Recommendations Staff seeks Authority approval of the Principles for Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (Principles). Upon approval of the Principles, staff will propose a work program, including schedule, cost estimate and stakeholder engagement plan, to pursue the development of a TEP for consideration in May. Financial Implications There is no cost to approve the Principles. However, development of the TEP requires considerable staff and consultant support effort, as well as other anticipated costs such as the fees paid to the Registrar of Voters and the County Clerk–Recorder. Authority Agreement No. 366 with Gray Bowen Scott, as amended, includes a total budget of $1.8 million for Public Outreach and Polling in Support of the CTP. Approximately $600,000 to $700,000 remains in the budget for continued consultant support for conducting additional public education and outreach following CTP adoption. The total cost of developing a TEP and placing it on the ballot is likely to exceed the remaining budget. Staff will propose a comprehensive work program and budget to finalize development of a TEP for discussion at a future Authority meeting. TWIC Packet Page Number - 98 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT April 15, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Options 1. Modify the proposed Principles. 2. Do not proceed with TEP effort. Attachments A. Draft Principles for Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan Changes from Committee N/A Background Since 1989, the Authority has administered sales tax revenues collected through voter- approved transportation improvement funding measures. Measure C, passed in 1988, created the Authority, and established a half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years expiring in 2009. In 2004, the voters of Contra Costa approved Measure J, which continued the half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years through 2034. Together, the two measures will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds. When leveraged with federal, State and regional funds, the two measures will result in over $6.5 billion invested in transportation projects and programs in Contra Costa. The projects and programs that are advanced with these funds were defined in a TEP that was developed by the Authority with input from many stakeholders. Each successful ballot measure involved a complex development process that eventually led to approval by the voters of Contra Costa. The current Measure J half-cent transportation sales tax will expire in 2034. Approximately 58 percent of the overall revenues are used for "pay-as-you-go" programs and 42 percent for capital improvement projects. During the first ten years of the measure, all of the major capital improvement projects (SR-4 East, eBART, I-680 and I-80 corridor investments and others) will be complete or in construction. Consequently by 2018, approximately 82 percent of the Measure J project funds will have been expended, and any remaining project revenues will go towards repayment of bonds. Given the lack of new funding for major capital projects at the State and federal level, and the need to augment maintenance and operational programs, the Authority is considering development of a new TEP for possible consideration by the voters in November 2016. TWIC Packet Page Number - 99 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT April 15, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Adoption of TEP Principles At its meeting in March, the Authority directed staff to initiate the development of a TEP for a possible November 2016 ballot measure. An initial step in this process is to adopt Principles for Development of a TEP (Principles). Development of a new TEP should be guided by principles that build on the Vision, Goals and Strategies identified in the 2014 CTP and that embrace the values of collaboration between the Authority and its partner agencies. Development of a TEP will require technical, political, public and stakeholder engagement. The Principles will help guide the Authority through the TEP stakeholder engagement and development process and the range of issues that will be part of the discussion leading to a TEP. The proposed Principles for a new TEP include supporting the Authority’s vision and goals; conducting a robust public participation effort; adopting a consensus-based approach; finding the right balance for a healthy environment and strong economy for future generations; maintaining the system; leveraging funds and continuing our commitment to growth management and cooperative planning (see Attachment A). Developing a Work Plan and Schedule Authority adoption of the proposed Principles marks a starting point for a major work effort that staff is prepared to undertake. Staff is currently developing a work program, detailed cost estimate and schedule, proposed committee structure, and stakeholder engagement strategy for discussion in May. Already, there is significant interest among stakeholders in the TEP development process. Upon approval of the Principles, staff and consultants will continue in the discussions that were held with the public and stakeholders during development of the draft CTP to transition to a discussion of a financially-constrained TEP. Relationship of the TEP Effort and MTC’s 2017 RTP In March, MTC released information regarding an update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Staff has reviewed the proposed RTP process and schedule and believes that it could be complementary to development of a TEP. Consequently, beginning in April, staff will simultaneously introduce the RTP and TEP development process to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs), the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), other standing committees and key stakeholders to collect input for development of a coordinated workplan. The goal of this effort will be to identify a process that TWIC Packet Page Number - 100 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT April 15, 2015 Page 4 of 4 results in consensus on priority projects and programs that may be applicable to both the TEP and the RTP. Next Steps A schedule and work program for undertaking the TEP will be brought to the Authority in May. The schedule will be based upon the required lead time and process involved with the preparation for a possible November 2016 ballot measure. Staff will make every effort to combine and coordinate the work with MTC for the development of the 2017 RTP with the effort to develop policies and investment priorities for the TEP. TWIC Packet Page Number - 101 Page 1 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Principles for Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan April 15, 2015 PREAMBLE Since 1989, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority has administered sales tax revenues collected through voter-approved transportation improvement funding measures, Measures C and J. Together, the two measures will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds. When these funds are combined with federal, State and regional funds, over $6.5 billion will be invested in transportation projects and programs approved by voters as part of Measures C and J. The two measures also include a Growth Management Program that requires new growth to pay its own way and encourages cooperative planning to address growth and transportation issues. Measure C, passed in 1988, created a half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years expiring in 2009. In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J, with a 71 percent vote, to continue the half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years beyond the original 2009 expiration date. All of the major projects identified in the Measure J Transportation Expenditure Plan are either underway or completed with accelerated delivery strategies so the benefits of the projects will be realized within the first 10 years of the enacted measure. Through Measures C and J, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is reducing the impacts of transportation on the environment, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, and providing congestion relief, including:  BART extensions and improvements  Bus and ferry service improvements  Highway 4 improvements from Hercules to Discovery Bay  New Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore  Richmond Parkway  Highway 24 and Highway 242 corridor improvements  Bicycle and pedestrian improvements  I-80 corridor improvements  I-680 corridor improvements  Transit service improvements for students, seniors and people with disabilities  Local street and road improvements  Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Every 5 years, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority updates its Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan to provide a blueprint for future investment in Contra Costa’s transportation system and identify projects, programs and policies anticipated to be needed over the next 25 years. The most recent update in 2014 included a comprehensive TWIC Packet Page Number - 102 Page 2 public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the communities throughout Contra Costa. The result is a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan that identifies goals for bringing together all modes of travel, networks and operators to meet the diverse transportation needs of Contra Costa County. VISION AND GOALS FOR THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Measure J requires the development and regular update of a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. As outlined in its “vision,” the Contra Costa Transportation Authority will: Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promoting a healthy environment and strong economy to benefit all people and areas of Contra Costa, through (1) a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network, (2) cooperative planning, and (3) growth management. The transportation network should integrate all modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa. To achieve this vision, the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies the following goals: 1. Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes; 2. Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its environment , and support its communities; 3. Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single occupant vehicle; 4. Maintain the transportation system; and 5. Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding. The challenge now facing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is to prioritize $32 billion in projects and programs, as our transportation needs significantly exceed available revenue. The projected revenue from federal, State and regional sources is not sufficient and a $10.9 billion shortfall is identified. Over the last two decades, local funds have become the driving force in funding transportation improvements. Development and approval of a new countywide transportation sales tax measure will be critical to help address the funding gap. TWIC Packet Page Number - 103 Page 3 PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will apply the following principles in developing a new Transportation Expenditure Plan that will define the use of funds from a potential new transportation sales tax measure for Contra Costa: 1. Vision and Goals. Support the vision and goals of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2. Public Participation. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will conduct a comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the communities throughout Contra Costa about the transportation priorities important for our communities. 3. Accountability. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue its commitment to accountability and transparency. 4. Consensus‐Based Planning. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan that reflects consensus between the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the public, stakeholders, regional transportation planning committees, cities, towns, Contra Costa County and transit agencies. 5. Balanced Approach. Balance the needs and benefits for all people and areas of Contra Costa to provide a healthy environment and strong economy, considering impact on vehicle miles travelled and greenhouse gas emissions, supporting transportation for livable communities’ projects, while accounting for future demographic and technological change and innovation. 6. Public Health. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority recognizes that transportation policy can result in a reduction of transportation impacts on the environment and provide complementary public health benefits. 7. Maintenance of the Existing System. Maintain the existing highway, road, bicycle, pedestrian and transit systems in a safe and operable condition. 8. Use of Local Dollars to Attract Other Funds. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue to identify federal, State and regional funding opportunities that can maximize the amount of overall funds available for transportation projects in Contra Costa. 9. Commitment to Growth Management and Cooperative Planning. New development should comprehensively address infrastructure improvement needs. The Transportation Expenditure Plan will carry forward Contra Costa’s Growth Management Program and adherence to the Urban Limit Line Policy, as adopted. TWIC Packet Page Number - 104 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: March 18, 2015 S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\031815\3.1 -Brdltr Discussion of TEP - fnl draft.docx Subject Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Summary of Issues Over the past two years, the Authority, its partners and other stakeholders have been working on the 2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). Through that planning process, over $32 billion of projects and programs were identified to improve our transportation system. The projected revenue from federal, state and regional sources is insufficient to fully fund the needs identified in the CTP. Over the last two decades, local funds from Measures C & J have become a major factor in the funding and delivery of transportation improvements, however, a significant funding gap still exists. Development and approval of a new Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) and an associated countywide transportation sales tax measure is one method to begin to address the funding gap. Staff seeks Authority guidance regarding development of a TEP, formation o f appropriate advisory committees, drafting of TEP principles, and schedule for adoption. Recommendations Staff recommends that the Authority initiate the TEP development process by directing staff to develop a work plan, committee structure, principles, and cost estimates for undertaking a Transportation Expenditure Plan effort. Financial Implications Authority Agreement No. 366 with Gray Bowen Scott, as amended, includes a total budget of $1.8 million for Public Outreach and Polling in Support of the CTP. Approximately $900,000 remains in the budget for continued consultant support for conducting additional public education and outreach following CTP adoption. The total cost of developing a TEP and placing it on the ballot would likely exceed the remaining budget. Upon approval of the Principles, staff will propose a plan to pursue the development of a TEP, including costs associate with additional consultant efforts for development and other costs such as the fees paid to the Registrar of Voters and the County Clerk–Recorder. Options 1. Defer TEP development. 2. Direct staff to investigate other options to address funding TWIC Packet Page Number - 105 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT March 18, 2015 Page 2 of 5 S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\031815\3.1 -Brdltr Discussion of TEP - fnl draft.docx shortfalls. Attachments A. Proposed Schedules to be handed out at Authority Meeting Changes from Committee N/A Background Since 1989, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority has administered sales tax revenues collected through voter-approved transportation improvement funding measures, Measures C and J. Measure C, passed in 1988, created a half-cent sales tax for 20 years, expiring in 2009. In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J, with a 71.1 percent vote, to continue the half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years (beyond the original 2009 expiration date). Together, the two measures will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds. When combined with federal, state and regional funds, it will result in over $6.5 billion invested in transportation (year of expenditure dollars). The projects and programs that are advanced with these funds are defined in a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) that was approved by the Authority and included with the ballot measures. The TEP is a critical component of gaining approval of a local transportation revenue source, as it clearly defines what benefits will be received if the electorate approves a local sales tax measure. The TEP also allows the Authority to include details of policy provisions that will be used in the implementation such as accountability, priorities for leveraging other fund sources, the Growth Management Program, the Urban Limit Line, and other policies. Information Developed Through the 2014 CTP Update The Authority updates its CTP every 5 years. The CTP provides a blueprint for future investment in Contra Costa’s transportation system, and identif ies projects, programs and policies anticipated to be needed over the next 25 years. Public review of the Draft 2014 CTP Update, released in August 2014, included a comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the communities throughout Contra Costa. The Draft CTP identified goals for bringing together all modes of travel, networks and operators to meet the diverse transportation needs of Contra Costa County. TWIC Packet Page Number - 106 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT March 18, 2015 Page 3 of 5 S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\031815\3.1 -Brdltr Discussion of TEP - fnl draft.docx In response to the public input received during September and October of 2014, Authority staff revised the Draft CTP. The Proposal for Adoption version of the CTP was posted to the Authority website as part of the March 4 Planning Committee meeting packet. It identifies over $32 billion (2014 constant dollars) of projects and programs. The projects are generally capital improvements to the transportation infrastructure, collections of related smaller infrastructure projects, and operational or service enhancements to existing transportation services. The programs generally represent costs to operate and maintain the existing transportation system. The cost for the projects identified in the draft CTP totals $12.4 billion with available funding from approved local, federal, state and regional sources projected to be $3.4 billion, resulting in a $9 billion shortfall for projects. The CTP cost for programs is $19.6 billion which is primarily funded from regional and other sources (including transit fares and tolls). The shortfall for programs is estimated to be less than $2 billion. Adoption of the Final 2014 CTP, originally scheduled for March 18, 2015, has been postponed pending further refinements to respond further to stakeholder comments. Status of Measure J The current Measure J half-cent transportation sales tax will be collected through 2034 and is included in the above revenue assumptions. Measure J includes a “pay-as-you-go” program component consisting of maintenance and operations activities and hybrid project programs (collections of related smaller infrastructure projects). Together, these represent about 58 percent of the overall revenue that will be used to continue the TEP defined program improvements (i.e. Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements, Bus Services, Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities, Safe Transportation for Children, Pedestrian, Bicycle & Trail Facilities, and Transportation for Livable Communities) through the expiration of Measure J. The remaining Measure J funds (42 percent) are identified in the TEP for major projects (e.g., new Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore, BART extension, Highway 4 widening, Richmond Parkway, I- 680 Carpool Lane Gap Closure). All of the major projects are either underway or completed, with accelerated delivery strategies ensuring that the benefits of the projects will be realized within the first 10 years. This is possible through an Authority policy to bond against future project revenues and aggressive delivery strategies. These strategies also resulted in nearly 3 to 1 leveraging of capital projects funding. A consequence of the aggressive delivery strategy is TWIC Packet Page Number - 107 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT March 18, 2015 Page 4 of 5 S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\031815\3.1 -Brdltr Discussion of TEP - fnl draft.docx that all the Measure J funds available for major capital projects have been expended or committed. Impetus for the TEP To continue to implement a robust capital program to improve the transportation network in Contra Costa, and to enhance or add new services, additional new revenue is required. Over the last two decades, local funds have become a major factor in the funding and delivery of transportation improvements. Development and approval of a new TEP and an associated countywide transportation sales tax measure is one method to begin to address the funding gap. On behalf of the Authority, EMC Research completed a research program that consisted of focus groups conducted in each of the four sub-regions and countywide telephone surveys of likely voters in Contra Costa County. The focus groups and the initial survey were completed in the autumn of 2013 and the follow-up survey was completed in March of 2014. The results showed strong support for the Authority’s work and a willingness to consider an extension and augmentation of the sales tax. The research indicates, however, that voters will insist on a detailed spending plan with improvements across all modes of travel. In particular, survey respondents expressed preference for improved transit and BART, traffic smoothing, and maintenance of existing streets and roads. Specific capital project investments, improved pedestrian and bicycle trails, and expanding alternative modes of travel also polled well. Process for Developing a new TEP Developing a new TEP is a lengthy process that will require a significant level of public outreach and stakeholder engagement. Staff estimates that the process would take about 18 months, which means that to get on the ballot in November 2016, the process would have to begin now. Previous schedules circulated to the Authority envisioned release of a Draft TEP in summer 2015, approval of a Final Draft TEP in December 2015, and using 2016 to go through the local review and approval process. Staff therefore seeks direction from the Authority to initiate the process. Upon direction from the Authority to start work on a new TEP, staff would develop a proposed committee structure, a schedule, and a cost estimate for the effort. The proposed proce ss would need to address the various scenarios and options for projects and programs, the amount and term of a possible TWIC Packet Page Number - 108 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT March 18, 2015 Page 5 of 5 S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\031815\3.1 -Brdltr Discussion of TEP - fnl draft.docx new measure, and different funding distributions. For example, current forecasts indicate that an additional 25 year half-cent sales tax (with collection starting in 2017) would generate approximately $2.3 billion (in constant 2014 dollars). Development of a TEP would also require technical, political, public and stakeholder engagement. The Authority would need to develop a set of Principles to help guide it through a range of issues that will need to be addressed, including supporting the vision and goals of the Authority, public participation, the need for consensus, and highlighting priority programs and policies. Regarding committee structure, staff recommends the creation of an Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from non-governmental organizations throughout Contra Costa. This committee would provide valuable input on developing a TEP that finds the right balance among competing transportation needs. Next Steps Upon direction from the Authority to proceed, staff would return in April with a recommended TEP process and schedule for consideration by the Authority. TWIC Packet Page Number - 109 2015 2016 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee Stakeholder Outreach Focus Groups and Polling Public Education and Outreach Overall Schedule Transportation Expenditure Plan March 18, 2015 Draft    Release Draft TEP for Public Review Prepare Scope, Schedule and Principles Establish EPAC Recommend TEP Components Recommend Changes to Draft TEP Recommend Changes to Final Draft TEP Adopt Final TEP Board of Supervisors Places Measure on Ballot Vote on TEP Measure Release Final Draft TEP Prepare Final Draft TEP Review Public Comments Review public outreach approach Begin public education and outreach Engage RTPCs on TEP; Develop stakeholder list & general questions Develop stakeholder list & general questions Report on responses Report on responses Report on stakeholder interviews Report on stakeholder interviews Develop questions Develop questions Report on responses CCTA staff/consultant begin work Authority/RTPC/EPAC review/approval Public review/outreach Staff/consultant work products            Local Review & Approval March 19, 2015 Authority Meeting Handout Agenda Item 3.1TWIC Packet Page Number - 110 Status actions entered today are listed in bold. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 1. CA AB 2 Community Revitalization Authority  Authorizes certain local agencies to form a community revitalization authority with a community revitalization and investment area to carry out provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law in that area for infrastructure, affordable housing, and economic revitalization and to provide for the issuance of bonds serviced by tax increment revenues. 04/22/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 2. CA AB 148 K­14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016  Reduces the minimum amount that a school district must set aside for ongoing and major maintenance of school buildings in a fiscal year. Authorizes a grant for new construction or modernization to be used for seismic mitigation. Requires an interagency plan to streamline the school facilities construction application and review process. Enacts the K­14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016 to provide funds for the construction and modernization of education facilities. 03/26/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on EDUCATION with author's amendments. 03/26/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re­referred to Committee on EDUCATION. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 3. CA AB 325 Community Development Block Grant Program: Funds  Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development, after notifying an applicant for a community development block grant, to enter into a grant agreement with the applicant. Requires the Department to provide the applicant with a complete and final list of activities to complete to receive a disbursement of funds. Requires the Department to notify the grantee has approved a disbursement or provide the grantee with a complete and final list of all remaining activities to be completed. 04/16/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT with author's amendments. 04/16/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re­referred to Committee on HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 4. CA AB 1362 Local Government Assessments Fees and Charges  Defines stormwater for purposes of the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to mean any system of public improvements or service intended to provide for the quality, conservation, control, or conveyance of waters that land on or drain across the natural or man­made landscape. 03/23/2015  To ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 5. CA SB 8 Taxation  Expands the Sales and Use Tax Law to impose a tax on the gross receipts from the sale in the State or, or the receipt of the benefit in the State of services at a specified percentage rate. 02/19/2015  Re­referred to SENATE Committee onTWIC Packet Page Number - 111 GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 6. CA AB 4 Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service  Prohibits weight fee revenues from being transferred from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account, or any other fund or account for the purpose of payment of the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds. Prohibits loans of weight fee revenues to the General Fund. 01/16/2015  To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 7. CA AB 6 Bonds: Transportation: School Facilities  Provides that no further bonds shall be sold for high­ speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High­Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century. Requires the net proceeds of other bonds to be made available to fund construction of school facilities for K­12 and higher education. 04/20/2015  In ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Failed passage. 04/20/2015  In ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Reconsideration granted. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 8. CA AB 8 Emergency Services: Hit­And­Run Incidents  Authorizes a law enforcement agency to issue a Yellow Alert if a person has been killed or has suffered serious bodily injury due to a hit­and­run incident and the law enforcement agency has specified information concerning the suspect or the suspect's vehicle. 03/23/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Do pass to Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 9. CA AB 21 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit  Requires the State Air Resources Board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost­effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 04/13/2015  In ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES: Not heard. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 10. CA AB 23 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Compliance  Exempts categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance obligation under a market­based compliance mechanism from being subject to that market­based compliance mechanism. 03/23/2015  In ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES: Failed passage. 03/23/2015  In ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES:TWIC Packet Page Number - 112 Reconsideration granted. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 11. CA AB 28 Bicycle Safety: Rear Lights  Requires that a bicycle operated during darkness upon a highway or a sidewalk be equipped with a red reflector, a solid red light, or a flashing red light on the rear that is visible for a specified distance to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. 04/22/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION with author's amendments. 04/22/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re­referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 12. CA AB 33 Global Warming Solutions Act: Climate Council  Establishes the Climate Change Advisory Council. Requires the Council to develop an analysis of various strategies to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit. Requires the State Air Resources Board to establish consistent metrics to accurately quantify reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, quantify public health benefits, and measure the cost­ effectiveness of the various strategies identified by the Council. 04/06/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES with author's amendments. 04/06/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re­referred to Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 13. CA AB 157 Richmond­San Rafael Bridge  Requires the lead agency to complete the design work for the project simultaneously with the environmental review conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act if the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Department of Transportation develop a project to open the third lane on the Richmond­San Rafael Bridge to automobile traffic on the eastbound level and to bicycle traffic on the westbound level. 03/26/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read third time, urgency clause adopted. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To SENATE. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 14. CA AB 227 Transportation Funding  Retains weight fee revenues in the State Highway Account. Deletes the provisions relating to the reimbursement of the State Highway Account for weight fee revenues and relating to the making of loans to the General Fund, thereby providing for the portion of fuel excise tax revenues that is derived from increases in the motor vehicle fuel excise tax in 2010 to be allocated to the State Transportation Improvement Program, to the State Highway Operation Program, and to city and county roads. 04/15/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re­referred to Committee on BUDGET. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest ActionTWIC Packet Page Number - 113 15. CA AB 323 Environmental Quality Act: Exemption  Amends the California Environmental Quality Act that exempts a project or an activity to repair, maintain, or make minor alterations to an existing roadway, if the project of activity is carried out by a city or county with a specified population to improve public safety and meets other specified requirements, to extend the that exemption to a specified date. 04/22/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time. To Consent Calendar. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 16. CA AB 327 Public Works: Volunteers  Deletes that repeal date provision of existing law that governing public works does not apply to specified work performed by a volunteer, a volunteer coordinator, or a member of the California Conservation corps or a community conservation corps. 02/23/2015  To ASSEMBLY Committee on LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 17. CA AB 464 Transactions and Use taxes: Maximum Combined Rate  Amends existing law that authorizes cities and counties, and if specifically authorized, other local government entities, to levy a transactions and use tax for general purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes imposed in the county to not exceed a specified percentage. Increases the maximum combined rate. 04/13/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on REVENUE AND TAXATION: Do pass to Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 18. CA AB 518 Department of Transportation  Amends existing law authorizing a local agency to enter into an agreement with the appropriate transportation planning agency to use its own funds to develop, and construct a project within its own jurisdiction. Deletes a provision requiring the department to compile information and report to the Legislature. 03/05/2015  To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 19. CA AB 1088 Education Facilities: Bond Act: Greene Act  Requires, for purposes of determining existing school building capacity, the calculation to be adjusted as required for first priority status, relating to multitrack year­round schools. Requires the existing school building capacity for a high school district to be calculated without regard to multitrack year­round school considerations. 04/22/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on EDUCATION with author's amendments. 04/22/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re­referred to Committee on EDUCATION. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 20. CA AB 1119 Public Utilities: Rights of Way  Specifies the terms municipal corporation and municipality include a county. Requires a municipal corporation, before using any street, alley, avenue, or 04/16/2015  Re­referred toTWIC Packet Page Number - 114 highway within any other municipal corporation, to request of the municipal corporation that has control over the street, alley, avenue, or highway to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject. ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 21. CA AB 1284 Bay Area State­Owned Toll Bridges  Provides that the Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee is subject to the Bagley­Keene Open Meeting Act. 04/08/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re­referred to Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 22. CA AB 1344 County Office of Education Charter Schools  Extends the authorization of a governing board of a school district to render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of school district property, except when the proposed use is for nonclassroom facilities to the governing board of a county office of education. Prohibits a county office from rendering such ordinance inapplicable to a charter school facility, unless the school is physically with the jurisdiction of the office. 04/22/2015  In ASSEMBLY Committee on EDUCATION: Not heard. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 23. CA AB 1347 Public Contracts Claims  Establishes for state and local public contracts a claim resolution process applicable to all public entity contracts. Defines a claim. Provides the procedures that are required of a public entity, upon receipt of a claim sent by registered mail. Provides an alternative claim procedure if the public entity fails to issue a statement. Requires the claim deemed approved in its entirety. Authorizes nonbinding mediation. Provide a public works contractor claim procedure. 04/21/2015  From ASSEMBLY Committee on ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW with author's amendments. 04/21/2015  In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re­referred to Committee on ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 24. CA ACA 4 Local Government Transportation Projects: Special Taxes  Provides that the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax for the purpose of providing funding for local transportation projects requires the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition. 04/06/2015  To ASSEMBLY Committees on TRANSPORTATION, REVENUE AND TAXATION and APPROPRIATIONS. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest ActionTWIC Packet Page Number - 115 25. CA SB 1 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Compliance  Amends the State Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Authorizes the State Air Resources Board to include the use of market­based compliance mechanisms. Exempts categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance obligation under a market­based compliance mechanism from being subject to that market­based compliance mechanism. Requires all participating categories of persons or entities to have a compliance obligation beginning on a specified date. 01/15/2015  To SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 26. CA SB 5 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Compliance  Relates to the State Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Authorizes the State Air Resources Board to include the use of market­based compliance mechanisms. Exempts categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance obligation under a market­based compliance mechanism from being subject to that market­based compliance mechanism through a specified date. 04/15/2015  In SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: Failed passage. 04/15/2015  In SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: Reconsideration granted. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 27. CA SB 9 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Transit/Intercity Rail  Modifies the purpose of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. Provides for the funding of defined large, transformative capital improvements. Updates project selection criteria under the program to projects that reduce greenhouse emissions. Requires estimates of funding available under the program. Allows the issuance of a no prejudice letter to allow an applicant to utilize its own funds on a project subject to reimbursement from program funds for eligible expenditures. 04/15/2015  From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with author's amendments. 04/15/2015  In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re­ referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 28. CA SB 16 Transportation Funding  Creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program and a related fund for deferred highway and local road maintenance. Provides for an increase in motor vehicle fuel tax, a vehicle registration fee, commercial vehicle weight fees. Transfers a portion of the diesel fuel tax increase to the Trade Corridors Investment Fund. Increases the vehicle license fee over a specified time period for transportation bond debt service. Relates to allocation for supplemental project allocation requests. 04/15/2015  From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with author's amendments. 04/15/2015  In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re­ referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action TWIC Packet Page Number - 116 29. CA SB 32 Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit  Requires the State Air Resources Board to approve a specified statewide greenhouse gas emission limit that is equivalent to a specified percentage below the 1990 level to be achieved by 2050. Authorizes the Board to adopt interim emissions level targets to be achieve by specified years. 03/16/2015  From SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY with author's amendments. 03/16/2015  In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re­ referred to Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 30. CA SB 39 Vehicles: High­Occupancy Vehicle Lanes  Increases the number of vehicle identifiers that the Department of Motor Vehicle is authorized to issue for HOV lane usage. 04/21/2015  From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 31. CA SB 40 Air Quality Improvement Program: Vehicle Rebates  Requires incentives for qualifying zero­emission, battery­electric passenger vehicles under the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project of the Air Quality Improvement Program to be limited to vehicles in that category with a manufacturer's suggested retail price of a specified amount. Requires the rebate for certain vehicles to be a specified sum, subject to the availability of funds. 04/06/2015  From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with author's amendments. 04/06/2015  In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re­ referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 32. CA SB 114 Education Facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12  Revises the definition of modernization under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 to include replacement of certain facilities. Requires a school district to certify that is has a certain school facilities master plan that is consistent with a certain sustainable communities strategy. Makes changes concerning evaluation of certain costs, eligibility, a statewide school facilities inventory, grants for seismic mitigation purposes, funding of joint­use facilities, and the use of certain bonds. 04/22/2015  From SENATE Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 33. CA SB 119 Protection of Subsurface Installations  Relates to excavation. Provides for certain training requirements, fines, and license suspension. Makes 04/20/2015 TWIC Packet Page Number - 117 changes relating to a regional notification center and subsurface installations. Provides for delineation of areas to be excavated, preservation of certain plans, damages, an exemption for certain residential property owners, occupational safety and health standards for excavators, and the use of moneys collected as a result of the issuance of citations. Creates a relates complaint authority. From SENATE Committee on JUDICIARY with author's amendments. 04/20/2015  In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re­ referred to Committee on JUDICIARY. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 34. CA SB 194 Vehicles: High­Occupancy Vehicle Lanes  Makes technical, nonsubstantive changes to existing law that authorizes local authorities and the Department of Transportation to establish exclusive or preferential use of highway lanes for high­occupancy vehicles on highways under their respective jurisdictions. 02/19/2015  To SENATE Committee on RULES. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 35. CA SB 313 Local Government: Zoning Ordinances: School Districts  Conditions the authorization to render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of school district property upon compliance with a notice requirement regarding a schoolsite on agricultural land. Requires the governing board of a district to notify a city or county of the reason the board intends to take a specified vote at least a certain number of days prior to that vote. 04/22/2015  From SENATE Committee on EDUCATION: Do pass as amended to Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 36. CA SB 321 Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes: Rates: Adjustments  Relates to motor fuel tax rates. Requires the State Board of Equalization to adjust the rate in a manner as to generate an amount of revenue equal to the amount of revenue loss attributable to an exception that reflects the combined average of the actual fuel price over previous fiscal years and the estimated fuel price for the current fiscal year. Relates to revenue neutrality. 04/23/2015  In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re­ referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 37. CA SB 564 Vehicles: School Zone Fines  Requires that an additional fine be imposed if a certain violation occurred when passing a school building or school grounds and the highway is posted with a standard warning sign and an accompanying sign notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for traffic violations that are committed within that school zone. Requires the funds from additional fines be deposited in the State Highway Account for funding school zone safety projects within the Active Transportation Program. 04/14/2015  From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 38. CA SB 595 Vehicles: Prima Facie Speed Limits: Schools  Makes technical nonsubstantive changes to existing law concerning the prima facie speed limit when approaching or passing a school. 03/12/2015  To SENATE Committee on RULES.TWIC Packet Page Number - 118 Bill ID Summary & Client Information Latest Action 39. CA SB 632 Vehicles: Prima Facie Speed Limits: Schools  Allows a city or county to establish in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, a 15 miles per hour prima facia limit when approaching at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. 04/14/2015  In SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Not heard. TWIC Packet Page Number - 119 Adopted Positions on Legislation of Interest – 2015 (Information Updated from Last Month is in bold/italics) Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes AB 2 (Alejo) Community Revitalization Authority Staff Recommendation: Watch Pending Support AB 148 (Holden) School Facilities: General Obligation Bond Measure Pending SB 8 (Hertzberg) Taxation Pending Watch AB 4 (Linder) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service Watch Watch Support & Seek Amendment AB 6 (Wilk) Bonds: Transportation: School Facilities   Watch Watch AB 8 (Gatto) Emergency Services: Hit-and-Run Incidents Pending Watch AB 21 (Perea) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit: Scoping Plan  Staff Recommendation: Watch Pending Watch AB 23 (Patterson) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption  Staff Recommendation: Watch Staff Recommendation: Oppose Pending Watch AB 33 (Quirk) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Scoping Plan Pending Watch AB 157 (Levin) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Watch Support & Seek Amendment SB 1 (Gaines) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Staff Recommendation: Watch Staff Recommendation: Oppose Pending Watch SB 5 (Vidak) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Staff Recommendation: Watch Staff Recommendation: Oppose Pending Watch SB 9 (Beall) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Seeking more information Watch Watch TWIC Packet Page Number - 120 Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes SB 16 (Beall) Department of Transportation   Support Support SB 32 (Pavley) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit Support Pending Watch SB 39 (Pavley) Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Watch Watch Oppose SB 40 (Gaines) Air Quality Improvement Program: Vehicle Rebates Pending Watch SB 114 (Liu) Education facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016 Staff Recommendation of Watch Watch SB 16 (Beall) Transportation funding Support Support SB 632 (Cannella) Vehicles: prima facie speed limits: schools. Support Support Watch Legislation based on CCC proposal SB 654 (De Leon) Hazardous waste: facilities permitting Watch Watch CA ACA 4 (Frazier) Local government transportation projects: special taxes: voter approval Pending/Support Support SB 313 (Galgiani) Local government: zoning ordinances: school districts Support Watch Watch AB 1344 (Jones) County office of education: charter schools Staff Recommendation of Oppose Oppose Oppose AB 194 (Frazier) High-occupancy toll lanes Watch Watch AB 227 (Alejo) Transportation funding Pending Watch AB 518 (Frazier) Department of Transportation Watch Watch AB 1284 (Baker) Bay Area state-owned toll bridges: Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee Watch G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2015.docx TWIC Packet Page Number - 121 Transportation Finance Plan 5· Year Road Malntenanee Program 1 ) 1lhe plan sllall draw from ~e fono.wing sou~ces : a) A 10 cent increase in the excise tax on gasoline and 12 cent increase on diesel tax . .a . The 2 cent rfncrease ,on dtesel tax shaU go towards ft~eight mov,ement and port congestion . lb) Retu.,ning truck weight fees •o the lransportabon fund ov,e,r .a five year period. 20% each year. c) Loan paybacks eacta year for 3 years from the Ra iny Day Fund. d) A 0 .35 percent increase in the VLF ·Over five y.ears to backfill the· loss to the general fund of the truck weight fees and continues untn1he bonds are retired. - e) A $35· VRF Increase for an veh tcles . 0 A $100 VRF fncrease forzero·emisston vehides. g) lldentilfy whether scmngs can be aooru·ed 1hrough bond defeasance. h) This would raise an additional $3..4 -3 .8 billion annually tor ftve yea rrs. '"nlere· are .NO rimpacts to the General Fund. 2) The funding shall be anooated as follows:· .a.) 5% shall be set aside t,o be made availab!le to cities and counties that approve loca l funding measul'\es after January 1,. 2016 . The remainder of the funds shan be· shared equally between Ule State. Cities and COunties as follows : b) 50% .shall be a lloca~ed to the· SHOPP program + c) 50% shall be allocated to cities and counties . 3) The proposal shall have penormance criteria and acoountabrtrty measures. 4) T1he proposal shall establish protections to ensure funding only be used for maintenance backlog. 5) The proposal shaU establish efficiencies within CaiTrans. Excise on GaiSOUne ~lln ~ents Vlf (in peKent) VRF (jn dollars)' t Weight fees (In millions) Annual ZEV Fees (In dol lars Excise on Diesel {lin cents) )1 GF Loan Pa,ybacks mesel Excise for Freilht 10 35% 35 0 100 10 2 PHASE IN (YRS) 1 5 1 s 1 l. 3 1 A!DOIJIONAL REV~ENUE BY YEAR (in milffons) YEAR1 YrEAR2 YEAR4 YEARS $ 1 .. 600 $ 1,460 $ ~60 $ 1,4'60 $ 1,460 $ 224 $ 448 $ 672 $ 896 $ t120 $ 1,.000 $ 1~000 $ 1))00 $ 1 .. 000 $ 2.,000 $ -$ . $ -$ .. $ - $ 110 $ 12 $ 15 $ 20 $ 25 $ 260 $ 260 $ 260 $ 2601 $ 260 $ 330 s 33{)1 $ 340 $ -$ - $ 52 s 52 $ 52 $ 52 s 52 I s 3,476 I s 3~62 I $ 3,199 I s 3,w I s 3,!)1, TWIC Packet Page Number - 122 1 Tell Your Legislators to Support New Revenues for Transportation Infrastructure Background California is facing a significant transportation fiscal cliff and it’s been decades in the making. The state base gasoline excise tax (gas tax) has not been increased since 1994. The federal gas tax hasn’t been adjusted in 21 years. Over the last two decades, inflation, improvements in fuel efficiency, and the move to alternative fuel and electric vehicles has severely eroded the purchasing power of these funding streams that are vital to the maintenance, preservation, and safety of the multi-modal statewide transportation network. Making matters worse, the steep drop in the price of gasoline during the end of 2014 and the first few months of 2015, while good for consumer pocketbooks, will result in a loss of $885 million for local streets and roads and highways next fiscal year. Local streets and roads and state highways are the bedrock of California’s jobs and economy. Everyone – pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and drivers – use local and state roads and are negatively impacted by safety issues and congestion. The condition of the state’s roads is an indicator of how well California is serving Californians. If we do not address infrastructure deficiencies, we are paving our own road to ruin. The local street and road system is facing a nearly $8 billion annual shortfall for the maintenance and preservation of the existing system, not including other critical modes of transportation. State highways have $59 billion in deferred maintenance over the same time horizon. Status The Governor and Legislature have elevated transportation infrastructure to the top of the public policy agenda in 2015. Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins has announced an interim funding package that would generate $2 billion a year for five years for improvements to state highways and local streets and roads. Meant as a starting place to kick-off dialogue and negotiations within the Legislature and with the Governor, CSAC anticipates additional proposals before a final funding solution is identified. The Senate Republican Caucus released its priorities for a new transportation funding package which includes repaying existing transportation loans, ending the off-highway vehicle gas tax diversion, and returning weight fees to transportation. At the time of this writing, Senator Jim Beall is also developing another interim five year funding plan that could generate between $2.8 billion to $3.6 billion annually. CSAC staff will provide updates with additional details as they become available. In the meantime, there is plenty to discuss with your legislative delegation that will lay the groundwork of support for the ultimate funding solution. TAKE ACTION Finding new revenues for transportation will take a bipartisan effort and requires a super majority, two- thirds vote of the Legislature and the Governor’s signature to enact. It is incumbent upon every county to reach out to their legislative delegation to explain the infrastructure conditions in their communities TWIC Packet Page Number - 123 2 and why action is needed this year. Provide them with examples of projects in their communities they can expect to see if they support new revenue options. Make the connection between their vote and positive impacts to your mutual constituents! The following talking points can be used in a variety of forums to get your message across, whether in a face-to-face meeting or in an Op Ed. Talking Points Primary Points  The 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report found that counties and cities are facing a $79.3 billion funding shortfall for the maintenance and preservation of just the local street and road system over the next decade. State highways have $59 billion in deferred maintenance.  It is important to invest in both local and state transportation systems. Drivers, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists do not care about ownership of the transportation system; they just want to get from Point A to Point B as efficiently and safely as possible.  Without new revenues, the transportation system will continue to crumble. The longer we wait, the more it will cost to fix our roads. Secondary Points  The 18-cent per gallon state gas tax is worth approximately 6.8-cents today adjusted for inflation and fuel efficiency.  New vehicles are more fuel efficient and federal standards will continue this trend.  Electric and hybrid cars pay less or no taxes at the pump for the same use of state highways and local streets and roads.  Public transit ridership is increasing and the state is investing more in transit and other mobility options in recognition of our climate and sustainability goals. Transit, bicyclists and pedestrians use the local street and road system as their main right-of-way, so even with passengers shifting from driving to using alternative transportation, traditional transportation infrastructure remains important.  Californians pay, on average, $780 annually for a daily coffee habit and over $1,000 for cable television. In contrast, drivers only pay $368 in all taxes on gasoline (including state, federal and local add-ons). Hold a Meeting in the District Your state legislative delegation returns to their respective districts on a weekly basis. Request a meeting with each Assembly Member and Senator that represents your county in their district office. Discuss the county’s transportation infrastructure inventory; the conditions of the local street and road system, including your essential components and locally owned bridges; the importance of the local TWIC Packet Page Number - 124 3 system to the mobility of all Californians and the economy; and the needs to bridge the system into a state of good repair (Attachment One: Selections from 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment). Take this opportunity to lend support to specific solutions that CSAC and your county are advocating for and provide any needed information to your elected officials so they know what those solutions would mean to their constituents (think about those project lists you just developed). Click here to locate your representatives’ office locations and contact information. Give a Tour Take your meeting outside and provide your legislative delegation with a tour of your county’s transportation facilities and projects. Invite local business and community leaders, community transportation advocates including bicycle, pedestrian and transit to participate. Demonstrate that there is a coalition of support for fixing California’s failing infrastructure. Show your representatives what a street or road with Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 40 or a failing bridge really looks like. You can also show them a project that proves investment in the local street and road system has positive implications for local, regional and statewide mobility, the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. Need inspiration? Visit the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment website to view award winning projects from counties and cities across the state. Write a Letter Pen a letter on county letterhead explaining your county’s current infrastructure challenges and how the solutions that CSAC and your county support can address these issues (Attachment Two: Sample Letter to Your Legislator). If your county doesn’t have a position on a specific proposal you can explain the principles CSAC (Attachment Three: CEAC Memo to CSAC on New Transportation Revenues) or your county supports to educate your delegation on which factors are most important when contemplating specific proposals. Get Social Tell the California State Legislature why your county cannot afford to wait for new revenues for transportation via social media. Tell them how much more it costs to rebuild a road than keep one in good condition. Tell them that school children cannot walk and bike to school without safe local streets and roads. Tell them that by using innovative technologies and practices your county is saving money and reducing GHG emissions when doing routine road maintenance and preservation. A picture is worth 1,000 words. With Twitter’s 140 character limit, snap a photo of your county’s streets, roads, and bridges (and the pedestrians, bicyclists and transit buses that use those facilities in your community) that need additional support. Most Assembly Members and Senators are on Twitter and regularly monitor their Twitter feeds. The easiest way to find your legislators is to utilize the search function on Twitter or by visiting their websites. Be sure to include our new hash tag #Roads4AllModes! Sample Tweets  CA streets & roads need $7.3 billion/year to be safe & reliable. Invest in CA local streets & roads. #Roads4AllModes www.savecaliforniastreets.org TWIC Packet Page Number - 125 4  Keep CA economy moving; invest in CA local streets and roads. #Roads4AllModes www.savecaliforniastreets.org  Don’t let CA streets & roads get worse. Invest in local system and keep CA people & economy moving. #Roads4AllModes www.savecalfiorniastreets.org  Every trip begins on a local street or road. #Roads4AllModes www.savecaliforniastreets.org  Billions needed to make CA local streets & roads safe & reliable for walkers, bikers & drivers. #Roads4AllModes www.savecaliforniastreets.org  Sustainable CA needs good streets and roads. #Roads4AllModes www.savecaliforniastreets.org  CA streets & roads are 81 percent of state’s roadways, new report said more $ needed to make them safe. #Roads4AllModes www.savecaliforniastreets.org For additional support on your advocacy efforts, please contact transportation policy staff: Kiana Buss, CSAC Legislative Representative (916.650.8185 or kbuss@counties.org) Chris Lee, CSAC Legislative Analyst (916.650.8180 or clee@counties.org). ENGAGE THE MEDIA Engage your local media outlets to bring attention to your county’s infrastructure needs, the statewide nature of the problem, and the need for a 2015 solution. Inform them about tours and other events through press releases. Write and submit Op Ed columns or guest commentaries to your local newspapers. You can use the talking points provided above to craft an Op Ed to clearly communicate the problem in your county and how it affects readers and your community at large. Op Ed Guidelines The term “Op Ed” refers to a longer form opinion piece that is usually placed on the page “opposite the editorial page.” Most newspapers will run responsible, well-written Op Eds from ordinary citizens, especially when they come from someone with a demonstrable expertise in the subject matter. For that reason, a newspaper may be more likely to run an Op Ed regarding local roads and bridges from the County Public Works Director or County Engineer. Contacting the paper ahead of time and asking if they are interested in an Op Ed on a specific topic may also be helpful. Op Ed requirements will vary considerably from one paper to another. You can usually find the guidelines for a specific paper on its website by clicking the “Opinion” tab. In general, you should try to keep your Op Ed to between 500-1,000 words and typically, the shorter the better. Try to keep them non-technical. Use plain language. Remember that most of your audience probably does not have a background in civil engineering. TWIC Packet Page Number - 126 5 Op Eds can usually be submitted via email to the Editor of the paper, or for larger publications, the Editor of the Editorial page. Many newspapers carry email addresses for these staff members under the “Contact Us” tab on the web page, and some of them also attach email addresses to specific stories or editorials that run in the paper. If you need help finding the right person to send it to, consult your County Public Information Officer, or call the newspaper directly. Letter to the Editor Guidelines Letters to the Editor guidelines will also vary widely from publication to publication. Some require letters to be as short at 150 words, but some do allow longer submissions. Usually, you can find specific guidelines for a given newspaper under their “Letters to the Editor” page, or the “Contact Us” page. In all cases, Letters should be concise, use plain language and consider the audience. You may be able to include links to additional resources. Sign your name and use your title if appropriate. A letter from Barbara Smith might be used in the paper, but a letter from Barbara Smith, County Public Works Director, has a better chance. Some papers allow you to submit a letter via simple email, either directly to an editor’s email address, or to a special “letters” email address set up for that purpose. Some papers require them to be submitted via a web-form. It may be helpful to follow up a web-form submission with another email directly to the Letters editor, explaining that you have already submitted a letter via their online process, and you are simply following up. For additional support on your media relations efforts, please contact public affairs staff: Gregg Fishman, CSAC Communications Coordinator (916.327.7500 x516 or gfishman@counties.org) TWIC Packet Page Number - 127 ATTACHMENTS Attachment One .......................Selections from 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Attachment Two .......................Sample Letter to Your Legislator Attachment Three .....................CEAC Memo to CSAC on New Transportation Revenues TWIC Packet Page Number - 128 Attachment One Selections from 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment TWIC Packet Page Number - 129 Table C.1 Pavement Needs by County* (2014 $) County (Cities included) Center Line Miles Lane Miles Area (sq. yd.) 2014 PCI 10 Year Needs (2014 $M) Alameda County 3,538.15 7,999.12 82,401,946 66 $2,305 Alpine County 135.00 270.00 1,900,800 44 $48 Amador County 477.96 958.12 6,485,201 33 $383 Butte County 1,800.07 3,675.85 26,771,323 66 $658 Calaveras County 716.98 1,332.66 8,937,332 51 $374 Colusa County 986.70 1,523.51 12,503,304 62 $317 Contra Costa County 3,376.49 7,047.81 63,500,917 68 $1,577 Del Norte County 323.88 643.80 5,334,695 63 $129 El Dorado County 1,252.70 2,508.40 21,671,673 63 $635 Fresno County 6,195.51 12,679.92 106,057,018 69 $2,572 Glenn County 910.42 1,821.73 13,917,626 68 $354 Humboldt County 1,470.96 2,933.21 24,234,864 64 $683 Imperial County 2,999.96 6,086.66 45,427,410 57 $1,236 Inyo County 1,134.80 1,802.50 13,700,999 62 $308 Kern County 5,026.42 11,648.11 103,132,477 64 $2,927 Kings County 1,328.00 2,795.72 20,026,009 62 $598 Lake County 752.70 1,494.45 9,997,345 40 $436 Lassen County 431.41 878.80 6,282,324 66 $186 Los Angeles County 21,329.61 57,629.56 459,830,656 66 $12,971 Madera County 1,822.44 3,680.41 23,490,290 47 $1,019 Marin County 1,021.14 2,055.14 17,166,574 63 $488 Mariposa County 1,122.00 561.00 3,949,440 44 $150 Mendocino County 1,124.43 2,255.81 16,004,034 35 $625 Merced County 2,330.00 4,954.00 37,182,870 58 $1,224 Modoc County 1,491.48 2,982.97 17,545,534 46 $566 Mono County 727.38 1,453.39 10,071,369 67 $147 Monterey County 1,779.28 3,725.79 33,599,361 50 $1,389 Napa County 725.80 1,507.56 12,896,309 59 $429 Nevada County 802.04 1,616.70 10,370,868 71 $234 Orange County 6,600.63 16,808.28 150,276,239 77 $2,725 Placer County 1,986.35 4,194.49 34,182,680 69 $799 Plumas County 703.90 1,408.60 11,409,902 64 $225 Riverside County 7,560.55 16,834.63 149,403,177 70 $3,551 Sacramento County 5,053.22 11,284.73 95,918,441 62 $2,939 San Benito County 452.32 916.23 5,951,814 48 $261 San Bernardino County 9,106.58 22,249.14 181,002,241 71 $ 4,103 San Diego County 7,813.98 18,596.42 170,696,012 66 $5,016 TWIC Packet Page Number - 130 County (Cities included) Center Line Miles Lane Miles Area (sq. yd.) 2014 PCI 10 Year Needs (2014 $M) San Francisco County 989.00 2,135.00 17,758,676 66 $473 San Joaquin County 3,287.78 6,806.76 60,571,515 73 $1,245 San Luis Obispo County 1,965.93 4,078.93 32,385,537 64 $887 San Mateo County 1,864.70 3,904.15 33,272,016 70 $769 Santa Barbara County 1,587.32 3,375.52 30,610,681 66 $852 Santa Clara County 4,172.80 9,431.15 92,436,719 68 $2,314 Santa Cruz County 873.65 1,790.15 14,190,207 57 $480 Shasta County 1,686.97 3,479.08 26,243,076 60 $799 Sierra County 398.20 798.65 3,669,765 45 $116 Siskiyou County 1,519.15 3,049.62 20,519,624 57 $604 Solano County 1,699.55 3,582.19 27,706,938 65 $744 Sonoma County 2,371.17 4,922.58 39,557,359 52 $1,540 Stanislaus County 2,916.30 6,031.63 53,459,748 55 $2,044 Sutter County 981.51 2,010.93 15,199,498 65 $385 Tehama County 1,197.49 2,400.88 15,834,143 62 $437 Trinity County 692.97 1,113.86 11,757,354 60 $352 Tulare County 3,937.17 8,132.39 60,195,390 68 $1,482 Tuolumne County 552.70 1,115.65 8,200,702 47 $369 Ventura County 2,512.86 5,530.08 50,382,156 70 $1,211 Yolo County 1,328.40 2,457.72 21,290,870 60 $655 Yuba County 724.40 1,504.26 12,862,583 60 $404 California 143,671 320,466 2,661,335,629 66 $72,746 * Includes Cities within County TWIC Packet Page Number - 131 INYO KERN SAN BERNARDINO SISKIYOU FRESNO LASSEN RIVERSIDE MODOC TULARE SHASTA MONO TRINITY IMPERIAL TEHAMA HUMBOLDT SAN DIEGO PLUMAS MENDOCINO MONTEREY LOS ANGELES BUTTE LAKE MADERA MERCED KINGS TUOLUMNE GLENN PLACER YOLOSONOMA VENTURA EL DORADO SANTA BARBARA SIERRA SAN LUIS OBISPO NAPA COLUSA MARIPOSA NEVADA STANISLAUS YUBA SAN BENITO SOLANO SAN JOAQUIN ALPINE DEL NORTE SANTA CLARA CALAVERASMARIN ORANGE ALAMEDA SUTTER SACRAMENTO AMADOR CONTRA COSTA SAN MATEO SANTA CRUZ SAN FRANCISCO (C) October 2014 NCE. GIS mapping data are from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html), accessed October 2014.Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape/area. ± 10-Year Pavement Needs by County($M) Rural County 48 - 500 501 - 1000 1001 - 2500 2501 - 5000 5001 - 13000 TWIC Packet Page Number - 132 INYO KERN SAN BERNARDINO SISKIYOU FRESNO LASSEN RIVERSIDE MODOC TULARE SHASTA MONO TRINITY IMPERIAL TEHAMA HUMBOLDT SAN DIEGO PLUMAS MENDOCINO MONTEREY LOS ANGELES BUTTE LAKE MADERA MERCED KINGS TUOLUMNE GLENN PLACER YOLOSONOMA VENTURA EL DORADO SANTA BARBARA SIERRA SAN LUIS OBISPO NAPA COLUSA MARIPOSA NEVADA STANISLAUS YUBA SAN BENITO SOLANO SAN JOAQUIN ALPINE DEL NORTE SANTA CLARA CALAVERASMARIN ORANGE ALAMEDA SUTTER SACRAMENTO AMADOR CONTRA COSTA SAN MATEO SANTA CRUZ SAN FRANCISCO (C) October 2014 NCE. GIS mapping data are from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html), accessed October 2014.Boundaries represent incorporated city limits from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape/area. ±Pavement Needs/Population by County($M per 1000 capita) Rural County 0.6 - 5.0 5.1 - 25.0 25.1 - 70.0 TWIC Packet Page Number - 133 (C) November 2014 NCE. GIS mapping data are from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html), accessed November 2014.Boundaries represent State Senate District Boundaries from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape/area. Pavement Funding Needsby State Senate District 1 8 16 2 4 12 17 28 3 40 14 19 38 5 21 7 232527 36 13 15 6 31 9 10 37 20 39 292632 22 3435 18 11 Legend Pavement Needs Up to $1.0B $1.0 - $1.5B $1.5 - $2.0B $2.0 - $3.0B > $3.0B ¯ 25 27 23 37 36 28 20 21 3129 26 19 32 22 34 35 18 33 30 24 0 25 50Miles 0 90 180Miles TWIC Packet Page Number - 134 (C) November 2014 NCE. GIS mapping data are from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html), accessed November 2014.Boundaries represent State Senate District Boundaries from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape/area. Pavement Funding Shortfallby State Senate District 1 8 16 2 4 12 17 28 3 40 14 19 38 5 21 7 232725 36 13 15 6 31 9 10 37 20 39 29263435 18 11 Legend Pavement Shortfall Up to $1.0B $1.0 - $1.5B $1.5 - $2.0B $2.0 - $3.0B > $3.0B ¯ 25 27 23 37 36 28 20 21 3129 26 19 32 34 35 18 22 33 30 24 0 25 50Miles 0 90 180Miles TWIC Packet Page Number - 135 (C) November 2014 NCE. GIS mapping data are from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html), accessed November 2014.Boundaries represent State Senate District Boundaries from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape/area. Pavement Funding Needsby State Assembly District 1 2 5 33 26 3 56 4 30 23 35 34 71 32 31 37 21 36 42 12 10 6 11 8 75 29 13 25 67 41 14 9 16 24 38 76 40 20 44 7 73 77 50 616860 43 55 39 28 22 47 74 15 78 57 7980 70 70 66 70 19 Legend Pavement Needs Up to $500M $500M - $1.0B $1.0B - $1.5B $1.5B - $2.0B > $2.0B ¯ 41 67 73 40 68 6055 52 74 43 50 47 57 45 39 48 72 66 6564 49 62 46 38 61 69 59 70 58 54 51 63 53 76 33 0 20 40Miles 0 90 180Miles TWIC Packet Page Number - 136 (C) November 2014 NCE. GIS mapping data are from US Census Bureau TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles (https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html), accessed November 2014.Boundaries represent State Senate District Boundaries from U.S. Census data and are approximate in shape/area. Pavement Funding Shortfallby State Assembly District 1 2 5 33 26 3 56 4 30 23 35 34 71 32 31 37 21 36 42 12 10 6 11 8 75 29 13 25 67 41 14 9 16 24 38 76 40 20 44 7 73 77 50 616860 43 55 39 28 22 47 74 15 78 57 7980 70 70 66 70 19 Legend Pavement Shortfall Up to $500M $500M - $1.0B $1.0 - $1.5B $1.5 - $2.0B > $2.0B ¯ 41 40 68 60 73 43 55 50 38 39 52 67 74 45 57 48 72 66 47 6564 49 62 46 69 37 59 36 70 58 54 51 63 53 33 44 61 0 20 40Miles 0 90 180Miles TWIC Packet Page Number - 137 What Are Funding Shortfalls? Transportation Asset 10 Year Needs (2014 $B) Pavements $72.7 Essential Components $31.0 Bridges $4.3 Totals $108.0 Funding $16.6 $10.1 $3.0 $29.7 Shortfall $ (56.1) $ (20.9) $ (1.3) $ (78.3) TWIC Packet Page Number - 138 What is the 18-cent Gas Tax Worth Today? 1 18.0 7.8 6.8 0 5 10 15 20 Nominal Inflation Adjusted Inflation and Mileage AdjustedCents/Gallon Decline in the value of the base excise tax from 1994 through 2014 Source: California Department of Transportation TWIC Packet Page Number - 139 Revenue Loss Due to Increases in Fuel Economy 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 Vehicle Miles Traveled Gasoline Consumption and Revenue Gas Consumption with Increased Efficiency Loss Due to Increased Fuel Efficiency VMT Growth and Revenue Growth Would be Equal if Fuel Efficiency Did Not Change Source: California Department of Transportation TWIC Packet Page Number - 140 TWIC Packet Page Number - 141 Attachment Two Sample Letter to Your Legislator TWIC Packet Page Number - 142 Sample Letter to Your Legislator The Honorable [Assembly Member or Senator’s name] Member, California State [Assembly or Senate] State Capitol, Room [Number] Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear [Assembly Member or Senator]: On behalf of the [County of XXX], I write to urge you to take action to avert the looming transportation crisis in the State of California and your district by working to find a bipartisan solution in 2015. California has more than 50,000 miles of state highways, 143,000 local streets and roads, and 24,000 bridges. In [XXX County] alone, we own and operate [XX] miles of roads and [XX] bridges. California’s economic vitality and the mobility of all Californians both depend upon a first–class, multi-modal transportation network. In spite of this fact, the stagnant level of investment into our shared transportation infrastructure has resulted in significant unmet maintenance and rehabilitation needs on both the state and local transportation systems. The 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report found that counties and cities are short $79.3 billion over the next 10 years just to bring the system into a state of good repair, which would minimize future maintenance costs. In [XXX County], we need [XX] in additional revenues to address our failing local infrastructure. This includes bike lanes and sidewalks that are critical to active transportation options. California’s transit operators also rely on local streets and roads as their primary right-of-way. The state highway system is also facing $59 billion in deferred maintenance costs over the next decade. The primary sources of revenue to maintain, preserve, repair, and rehabilitate highways and local roads and bridges are state and federal gasoline excise taxes (gas taxes). Neither the state nor federal gas tax has been increased in more than 20 years. Both gas taxes are not adjusted for inflation or increases in the cost of construction. Increases in fuel efficiency, which is critical to reduce costs to motorists and meet our environmental goals, means that vehicles are travelling more yet paying less for use of the transportation system. Making matters even worse, the recent short-lived decline in the price of gas, while good for consumer pocketbooks, will result in a year-to-year reduction of $885 million in transportation revenues. The California Transportation Commission is currently studying alternatives to the state gas tax such as a road user charge that would more accurately charge drivers for their use of the system, but the results of that study are years away. That is why the [XXX County] is asking you to take bold action this year to find new interim funding solutions to begin to make much needed improvements in the transportation system. The California State Association of Counties is recommending that the Legislature and Governor agree on a funding plan that returns existing revenues to transportation (through repayment of $1 billion in outstanding loans and an end to the diversion of gas tax swap revenues related to vehicles that do not use public roadways) and creates new revenues through a variety of means, such as an increase in the gas tax and/or a new vehicle registration or license fee. The bottom line is that the longer we wait to address our failing transportation infrastructure, the more it will cost in the long run. We need an immediate funding solution in 2015 to ensure the problem doesn’t TWIC Packet Page Number - 143 get worse and to bridge the funding gap while California considers whether to implement longer-term options to replace the gas tax. Sincerely, cc: The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor, State of California The Honorable Kevin de Leon, President Pro Tem, California State Senate The Honorable Bob Huff, Minority Leader, California State Senate The Honorable Toni Atkins, Speaker, California State Assembly The Honorable Kristin Olsen, Minority Leader, California State Assembly TWIC Packet Page Number - 144 Attachment Three CEAC Memo to CSAC on New Transportation Revenues TWIC Packet Page Number - 145 May 31, 2012    To: CSAC Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Policy Committee    From: Mike Penrose, Chair, CEAC Transportation Committee  DeAnn Baker, CSAC Senior Legislative Representative   Kiana Buss, CSAC Senior Legislative Analyst    Re: Recommendations for New Transportation Revenues    Background  During the CSAC Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Policy Committee (HLT Committee)  meeting in November 2011, after a presentation on the California Transportation  Commissions’ Statewide Transportation System Needs Assessment Report (CTC Report),  Chair, Supervisor Efren Carrillo (Sonoma County), directed staff to develop a list of revenue  options for the HLT Committee to consider to address California’s enormous and still  growing needs on the transportation network.  As reported to the HLT Committee, the CTC  Report found that the total cost of system preservation, system management, and system  expansion over a ten‐year period in California is roughly $536.2 billion. With a total  estimated revenue of $242.4 billion over the same period, Californians are facing a $293.8  billion shortfall in order to bring the transportation network into a state of good repair and  maintain it in that condition into the future.     CSAC staff has worked with the County Engineers Association of California (CEAC) to  develop a list of possible revenue sources for new transportation funding. In addition to  developing the list of possible revenue sources, the CEAC Transportation Committee  developed a set of principles for evaluating each possible revenue stream to see how well  each option fits within existing CSAC policy and the goals of the HLT Committee and  Association as a whole. Staff has also listed the major pros and cons related to each possible  revenue stream.     After an in‐depth discussion on eleven various revenue options, CEAC agreed that four in  particular were the most appropriate to fund the transportation needs that are most  important to counties (i.e. local streets and roads, state system, and transit).   They are  listed in alphabetical order and do not reflect any sense of priority.     Principles  I. Unified Statewide Solution. All transportation stakeholders must stand united in the  search for new revenues. Any new revenues should address the needs of the entire  statewide transportation network.   II. Equity. New revenues should be distributed in an equitable manner, benefiting both  the north and south and urban, suburban, and rural areas alike.   TWIC Packet Page Number - 146 2 III. System Preservation. Given the substantial needs for all modes of transportation, a  significant portion of new revenues should be focused on system preservation. Once  the system has been brought to a state of good repair (the most cost effective  condition to maintain the transportation network), revenues for maintenance of the  system would be reduced to a level that enables sufficient recurring maintenance.   IV. All Users Based System. New revenues should be borne by all users of the system  from the traditional personal vehicle that relies solely on gasoline, to those with new  hybrid or electric technology, to commercial vehicles moving goods in the state, and  even transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians who also benefit from the use of an  integrated transportation network.    V. Alternative Funding Mechanisms. Given that new technologies continue to improve  the efficiency of many types of transportation methods, transportation stakeholders  must be open to new alternative funding mechanisms. Further, the goal of reducing  greenhouse gases is also expected to affect vehicle miles traveled, thus further  reduce gasoline consumption and revenue from the existing gas tax.  The existing  user based fee, such as the base $0.18‐cent gas tax is a declining revenue source.  Collectively, we must have the political will to push for sustainable transportation  revenues.     Local Streets and Roads Revenue Options  I. Gas Tax Increase and Indexing. Increase the excise tax on gasoline and/or index the  new revenues along with the base $0.18‐cent gas tax to keep pace with inflation.  Another option is to just index the existing $0.18 base portion of the gasoline tax.  Per every one‐cent gas tax increase, approximately $150 million is generated. The  California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report identified a  $79.9 billion shortfall over the next ten years or an $8 billion annual need just to  address the preservation of the local street and road system.  Thus, this equates to a  56‐cent gas tax increase just to meet local system preservation needs.   Pros Cons User‐based fee; pay at the pump to use  the system    Declining revenue stream – vehicles are  more efficient, hybrid and electric  technology, less consumption.  Further,  greenhouse gas reduction goals strive to  reduce vehicle miles traveled, less  consumption  Indexing makes the tax sustainable by  keeping pace with the cost of living and  construction costs  TWIC Packet Page Number - 147 3 Tax payers pay over time, not in a lump‐ sum    II. Sales Tax on Gasoline Options. Reinstate the sales tax on gasoline and/or reduce the  voter threshold for the imposition of local sales tax measures for transportation  purposes. The two options could be implemented individually or together as a  package of changes to the sales tax on gas. The sales tax on gasoline would have  generated approximately $2.8 billion in FY 2012‐13 if it were still in place. If shared  between the State, transit, and cities in the same manner as the previous sales tax, it  would generate $560 million for counties in the same fiscal year. Regarding the local  sales tax option, the self‐help counties coalition estimates another 15‐17 counties  could pass local measures with a reduction to a 55% voter threshold.   Pros Cons Increasing revenue stream;generates  more revenues as the price of gas  increases  Unlikely to have support from the  Legislature and Governor given the  transportation tax  swap and 2012  November ballot initiatives  Tax payers pay over time, not in a lump‐ sum  Also effected by reduced consumption     Political viability since Prop 42 was  passed by the voters to direct sales taxes  on gasoline to transportation and was  then replaced with the new HUTA by the  Legislature in the swap    III. Transportation System User Fee. Institute a one‐percent annual vehicle registration  fee based on the value of a vehicle and dedicate revenues to transportation.  Research indicates 27 million vehicles would be subject to the fee. Funds would be  distributed in the same manner of the old sales tax, 40% to counties and cities, 40%  state highways, and 20% transit. The fee would generate $2.7‐$3 billion annually,  which would provide counties $540‐600 million. The Transportation System User Fee  is especially intriguing as Transportation California, representing business,  construction, and labor groups, has already drafted a proposal and is undertaking an  education and outreach campaign to build support for a near‐term ballot measure.  Pros Cons New idea; different from conventional  sales tax or gas tax proposals  Annual fee so taxpayers feel the burden  all at once  TWIC Packet Page Number - 148 4 Sustainable; captures revenues from all  vehicle operators of the road system  including operators of electric vehicles  and other alternative fuel vehicles  A fee based on value of a vehicle is close  to VLF, which can be a hot button issue,  voters react to it, i.e. Schwarzenegger  reducing the VLF and taking over as  Governor    IV. Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee. Institute a fee based on a vehicle miles traveled per  registered vehicle, personal and/or commercial. This could require GPS tracking  devices to be installed in vehicles or perhaps reporting on a quarterly, semi‐annually,  or an annual basis to the State on the total number of miles driven per registered  vehicle. It is unclear how much such a tax would need to be set at to generate the  funds necessary to address California’s transportation revenue shortfalls. In 2010,  there was 327 million vehicle miles traveled in the state.   Pros Cons User based revenue; pay to use the  system  Concerns about privacy rights related to  a GPS tracking device   Can link fee to peak driving times like  congestion pricing on toll roads  It is a potentially declining revenue  source as greenhouse gas reduction goals  attempt to reduce VMTs   Implementation would be significant  given there isn’t the same or similar  process already set up    The CEAC Transportation Committee also considered the following revenues possibilities  but did not conclude that these options were as viable or sustainable or otherwise did not  meet the overarching principles:     Weight Fee Increase   Regional Fee   Local Fee   Public‐Private Partnerships   Infrastructure Bank   Toll Roads   Congestion Pricing    Recommendation.  Again, the four aforementioned revenue options appear to be the most viable and  sustainable opportunities for increased revenues to address the significant funding  shortfalls for transportation in California. The CEAC Transportation Committee recommends  that the HLT Committee take action to recommend that the CSAC Board of Directors  support these options to fund our transportation needs. Policy direction should be broad  enough to allow CSAC to support any of the options that meet our overall policy goals.  TWIC Packet Page Number - 149 The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553 John Gioia, 1st District Candace Andersen, 2nd District Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District Karen Mitchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District April 21, 2015 Senator Carol Liu, Chair Senate Education Committee State Capitol, Room 2083 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: SUPPORT SB 313 Galgiani Senate Education Committee – April 22, 2015 Dear Senator Liu: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, I am writing to inform you of the County’s support for Senate Bill 313 (Galgiani). Senate Bill 313 (hereafter SB 313) would bring much needed improvement to the coordination between the school districts and local land use agencies in the development of school sites. As you are aware from our March 31, 2015 letter to you and Senator Block regarding the February 18, 2015 Joint Informational Hearing on the K-12 School Facility Program, we believe that current school siting practices are in direct conflict with a wide range of local and state policies. Policies related to safe routes to school, complete streets, greenhouse gas reduction, health in all policies, preservation of agricultural land, etc. are all compromised by current school siting practices. SB 313 helps to address this glaring inconsistency in state policy. We respectfully request your support for the bill when it is heard in your committee on Wednesday, April 22, 2015. Sincerely, John M. Gioia, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District I C: Honorable Members of the Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation Honorable Members, Senate Education Committee Honorable Cathleen Galgiani File: Transportation > Agencies > State > CDE File: Transportation > Land Development > School Districts g:\transportation\bos letter-memo\2015\4-21-15 bos to sen galgiani resb 313.docx David Twa Clerk of the Board          and  County Administrator  (925) 335‐1900  Contra Costa County TWIC Packet Page Number - 150 The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553 John Gioia, 1st District Candace Andersen, 2nd District Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District Karen Mitchoff, 41h District Federal D. Glover, 51h District March 31, 2015 Senator Marty Block, Co-Chair Education and Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education. State Capitol, Room 5019 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contra Costa County Senator Carol Liu, Co-Chair David Twa Clerk of the Board and County Administrator (925) 335-1900 Education and Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education. State Capitol, Room 2083 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: February 18, 2015 Joint Informational Hearing: K-12 School Facility Program: History, Current Status, and Future Options. Dear Senator Block and Senator Liu: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is writing to thank you for convening the recent Joint Informational Hearing on the K-12 School Facility Program. We appreciate the testimony provided by Mr. Bill Savidge, Assistant Executive Officer of the State Allocation Board. We agree with Mr. Savidge regarding the need to increase bicycle and pedestrian safety in school areas and that school construction should not be driving sprawl. These issues have been a concern of Contra Costa County for some time. We have been attempting to communicate our concerns to state and local staff regarding school siting policies and practices. In very short summary: 1) Our experience is that State staff generally believes it is the responsibility of local jurisdictions to ensure the development of well-sited and safe schools. In contrast, local school district representatives generally believe they merely follow State policies relative to siting and design. 2) The State has produced several planning documents that substantiate the safety and land use concerns of the County and Mr. Savidge, (these documents were referred to in the February 18 Joint Hearing materials). However, when discussing the issue with State staff, there is often no acknowledgement of any problem with school siting practices. This gap in responsibility and lack of acknowledgement of a problem has resulted in schools being developed that are inconsistent with state and local policies relative to safe routes to school, public health, climate change principles and orderly land development. Careful attention should be paid to ensure that this gap does not ultimately compromise any mechanism that is put in place to address issues with school siting and safety. TWIC Packet Page Number - 151 Senator Marty Block, Senator Carol Liu March 31 ,2015 Page 2 of2 The County acknowledges that most school facilities are well-sited and designed with accommodation for safe, multi-modal access. The County further acknowledges that the school facilities program must be able to deliver sites in an expeditious, predictable manner. However, a policy which assigns clear responsibility for confirming that schools are designed for safe access and consistent with other applicable policies is greatly needed. Please fmd attached the County's draft white paper, the California School Siting and Safety Initiative, which we are using during outreach efforts on this issue. The white paper identifies issues of concern and contains a discussion of potential policy solutions. Also attached find our previous communication to Superintendent Torlakson which expands on our concerns summarized above. The Board of Supervisors appreciates your attention to this matter. We look forward to reviewing any proposal the State has in order to address the aforementioned issues. Sincerel y~ j ,. .. ~· i / l.F ... l .' .. ·' .• . I' ./.// ·" "t. tL j,r· ., f,,·t·lf.: ~ .. ·A" "-' .·· John M. Gio\a ; .. Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District I C: Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation Assembly Member Susan Bonilla, Member-State Allocation Board Assembly Member Patrick O'Donnell, Chair-Assembly Committee on Education Bill Savidge, SAB Assistant Executive Officer Enclosures (2) Fill•: Tnuu.poJtali<>n i\g,•nrJ''' State ( Dl fill-: T ransportm ion Lmd Dcwlopml'lll Sdl<>ol Di-:tnct,. g ··tmn-ponmi<>n h'>: kll~r-m. mo 20 I ~<1-11-15 i<•inti:Jc:iltylwaringk-1::! :.chool llil'liilyfinal.doc:. TWIC Packet Page Number - 152 4/8/2015 Vision Zero Network Launches To Advance Safe Streets | Press Releases News | Print Financial & Investing Articles | TheStreet http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/13105568.html 1/2 Print    Back to Article Vision Zero Network Launches To Advance Safe Streets By PR Newswire |  04/08/15 ­ 12:00 PM EDT OAKLAND, Calif., April 8, 2015 /PRNewswire/ ­­ Recognizing that the safety of streets and sidewalks go hand in hand with encouraging physical activity, Kaiser Permanente announced support for the Vision Zero Network, a newly formed collaborative aimed at ensuring all people have safe and healthy ways to move around their communities. Vision Zero is a strategy emerging across the United States to eliminate traffic fatalities and injuries — particularly for those walking and bicycling. The Network will bring together leaders in public health, traffic engineering, police, policy and advocacy to develop and share winning strategies to make Vision Zero a reality — strategies such as managing speed, redesigning streets, leading behavior change campaigns and traffic enforcement. "Kaiser Permanente wants more people to engage in physical activity, such as walking and biking, and to build that activity into their daily routine," said Tyler Norris, vice president, Total Health Partnerships, Kaiser Permanente. "But assuring access to safe streets and environments is critical to support them to be more active in the communities where they live, work and go to school." First launched in Sweden in the 1990s and proving successful across Europe, Vision Zero is building momentum in major U.S. cities, including San Francisco, Washington D.C., Portland, Seattle and New York, with additional cities considering action. Studies show that many American city streets are dangerous by design. Nationally, 15 percent of traffic fatalities are amongst people walking or biking, and the majority of these tragedies occur in urban areas. In America, on average, someone is killed while walking every two hours, or injured every eight minutes in a traffic accident. Research also shows that minorities, children, the elderly and individuals in low­income urban areas disproportionately suffer from pedestrian deaths. "For too long, in too many communities, our transportation systems have been out of sync with our priorities for improved health, sustainability, equity and economic well­being," said Leah Shahum, director, Vision Zero Network. "Recognizing that we can and must do more to ensure our citizens' right to safe mobility, leaders at the local level are mobilizing for Vision Zero, building the momentum from the ground up to transform their streets and sidewalks into safe spaces for all. We want to help them succeed." The Vision Zero Network received a three­year grant from the Kaiser Permanente National Community Benefit Fund at the East Bay Community Foundation. Four years ago, Kaiser Permanente catalyzed — and continues to lead — a national conversation about the benefits of walking, physical activity and active transportation. The Vision Zero Network is a fiscally sponsored project of Community Initiatives. To learn more the Vision Zero Network, visit visionzeronetwork.org. About Kaiser Permanente Kaiser Permanente is committed to helping shape the future of health care. We are recognized as one of America's leading health care providers and not­for­profit health plans. Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente has a mission to provide high­quality, affordable health care services and to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve. We currently serve approximately 9.6 million members in eight states and the District of Columbia. Care for members and patients is focused on their total health and guided by their personal physicians, specialists and team of caregivers. Our expert and caring medical teams are empowered and supported by industry­leading technology advances and tools for health promotion, disease prevention, state­of­the­art care delivery and world­class chronic disease management. Kaiser Permanente is dedicated to care innovations, clinical research, health education and the support of community health. For more information, go to: kp.org/share. Kaiser Permanente media contact: Catherine Brozena, 510­325­5453 Vision Zero media contact: Leah Shahum, 415­269­4170 Logo ­ http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130718/SF49717LOGO   To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit: http://www.prnewswire.com/news­releases/vision­zero­network­launches­to­advance­ safe­streets­300062522.html SOURCE Kaiser Permanente  TWIC Packet Page Number - 153 DIANNE FEINSTEIN CALIFORNIA SELECT COMM ITIEE ON INTELLIGENCE -VICE CHAIRMAN COMM ITIEE ON APPROPR IATIONS COMMITIEE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITIEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION ~nittb ~tate~ ~enate WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504 http :/ /feinstein .senate. gov April 22, 20 15 The Honorable James Inhofe Chairman Environment and Public Works 205 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Barbara Boxer Ranking Member Environment and Public Works 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer: As the Committee on Environment and Public Works continues to craft a MAP-21 reauthorization bill, I urge you to ensure adequate funding for all bridges on Federal-aid highways. Changes under MAP-21 to eliminate the Highway Bridge Program in favor of performance-based funding were well-intentioned but have unfortunately left one category of bridges-locally-owned bridges that are on the Federal Aid Highway system-without a dedicated funding source. As you know, bridges are a unique component of our nation's transportation system. Unlike a variety of road and pavement projects, many bridge projects entail complex design processes , necessitate long-term planning and procurement, and present unique construction challenges. Moreover, there is little room for error when it comes to bridge safety, as they must remain structurally sound in order to ensure that vehicles and motorists are secure. Prior to MAP-21, all bridges were eligible for funding under the Highway Bridge Program. The 2012 Act eliminated the program, however, and shifted a majority of its funding to the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP). As a result , just 23 percent of the nation's bridges are eligible for assistance under the NHPP, as the program only supports bridge projects that are a part of the National Highway System . The ·remaining 77 percent of the nation's bridges, which includes both on-and off-system bridges that are owned by local TWIC Packet Page Number - 154 agencies, must rely on funding from the Surface Transportation Program (STP). Notably, STP receives less than half of the funding allocation of the NHPP, meaning local bridge projects must compete with other eligible projects for very limited funding. In California, nearly 28 percent of local bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, meaning these structures are in poor condition due to deterioration and damage or were built to standards that are not used today. In some counties, the percentage of local bridges that are in need of rehabilitation or replacement exceeds 50 percent. It is in the national interest to resolve this backlog and maintain these bridges in a state of good repair moving forward. While the State of California and its local governments have placed an emphasis on financing these projects, there is an estimated shortfall of $1.3 billion to maintain the safety and integrity of the bridge infrastructure. Moreover, over half of California's local bridges are located on Federal-aid highways. Unlike off-system bridges, which receive a special funding set-aside under MAP-21, on-system bridges do not have a dedicated federal funding source. These projects, therefore, must compete for limited dollars, meaning many essential on-system bridge projects are left shortchanged. I encourage the Committee to find a solution for this disparity, either by setting aside funding for locally-owned on-system bridges, as has been done for off-system bridges, or better yet by significantly increasing the funding made available through the Surface Transportation Program. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other important issues as the Committee considers options for a new transportation bill. Sincerely, ianne Feinstein United States Senator TWIC Packet Page Number - 155 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9. Meeting Date:05/04/2015 Subject:REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2015 Calendar and the Committee Mailing List. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2015 Calendar. Referral Update: The Committee should review and adopt the 2015 Draft TWIC Calendar. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2015 Calendar. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 2015 DRAFT Calendar TWIC Packet Page Number - 156 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Chair Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III, Vice Chair 2015 Meeting Schedule DATE ROOM TIME March 2 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. April 6 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. May 4 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. June 1 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. July 6 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. August 3 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. *September 8 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. October 5 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. November 2 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. December 7 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. The Agenda Packets will be mailed out prior to the meeting dates. For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833 John.Cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us DRAFT *date changed for holiday observance TWIC Packet Page Number - 157